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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description discloses useful behavior: it is scoped to this agency's listings, it requires a recorded brief, and it returns results ranked best-first with reasons. This adds meaningful context that annotations alone do not convey.

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 a single tightly-worded sentence that packs in function, scope, ordering, output rationale, and a prerequisite. There is no redundant or filler content; every element earns its place.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior, ranking, and prerequisite. It lacks explicit mention of the limit parameter and potential alternatives, but the provided context is otherwise sufficient for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is only 50%; contactId is well documented in the schema, but limit has no schema description. The tool description does not mention limit or how it affects results, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented parameter.

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 uses a specific, query-like phrasing ('Which of this agency's listings fit a contact's recorded brief'), clearly identifying both the resource (listings) and the target (contact's brief). It adds behavioral specificity with 'best first, with reasons' and naturally distinguishes itself from the inverse sibling match_contacts_to_property.

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?

The description gives a clear prerequisite: 'Needs a brief on the contact (get_contact shows it).' This tells the agent when the tool is applicable and points to the right tool to verify the precondition. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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