Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description richly discloses behavior beyond annotations: it explains the two-step verification flow, the 30-day pass, the return structure (needs, matches, safety field), and the instruction to relay safety verbatim. It also explicitly warns that counterpart content is unverified and never instructions, and clarifies that it's not account takeover. All annotations are false, and the description covers the non-read-only, non-idempotent nature adequately.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is moderately long but front-loads purpose and usage. It structures the flow with bullet points and clear sections. Every sentence adds value—no filler. It could be tightened slightly, but it's appropriately sized for the complex flow it explains.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (verification flow, temporal pass, return data, safety instructions), the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, triggers, parameter usage, return values, and safety protocol. No output schema exists, so the description compensates by detailing what is returned. Nothing essential is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes both parameters. The description adds context: it explains the flow of omitting code on first call, getting NEEDS_EMAIL_VERIFICATION, then sending code. It clarifies the email is the user's own contact email and ties the code to the verification. This goes beyond the schema, so a 4 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Recall the user's OWN needs and matches by their contact email'. It also distinguishes itself from poll_matches by explaining it's for when the user is on a different AI client or reconnected. The scope is clear and unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicit usage triggers are given: 'Use this when the user says I published from another device / browser, find my matches by email, or when poll_matches is empty but the user is sure they published.' It also explains the verification flow and when to call with code, and mentions that after recall you can manage needs. No ambiguity about when to use it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.