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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail about the response structure: each hit carries a corpus why, a when-not/FTO trade-off, and cited same-area cross-links. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 two sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the usage condition is stated immediately after, making it easy for an agent to scan and act on.

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 two-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, what results look like, and when to use it. The 'C-03' code is slightly opaque but does not block 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 100%, so the query and limit parameters are already documented in the schema. The description does not add parameter-level detail beyond confirming that the query is a 'task or problem to recommend against,' which is also in the schema. Baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'ranked Pattern-Assist recommendations for a task.' It also distinguishes itself from a lexical hit list, making clear it is a recommendation tool rather than a plain search tool. The description of hit components reinforces the tool's identity.

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?

Explicitly says to use this tool 'when the learner wants alternatives, not just a lexical hit list,' which gives clear usage context. It does not name the sibling tool (likely search_patterns) explicitly, but the contrast is strong enough to route an agent correctly.

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