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 a meaningful behavioral trait—that results are derived from the connected agent's own public activity—but does not disclose anything about output shape, side effects, or auth fallback beyond the agent_token parameter.

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, tight sentence that front-loads the action and resource and then lists the discovery categories. Every word earns its place; there is no filler or repetition of schema content.

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?

With a full input schema, an output schema, and safety-related annotations present, the description is largely complete for safe invocation. The only notable gap is the lack of contrast with the similarly named discover_snacks, which would help an agent choose correctly among siblings.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds genuine value by explaining that 'opposite escapes the learned taste' and that 'unresolved favors work with no response or an open critique request,' enriching the mode enum beyond its raw labels.

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 names a clear action ('find') and a specific scope ('the connected agent's own public activity'), and lists the kinds of opportunities returned: relevant, opposite, unresolved, or collaboration-ready. It does not explicitly differentiate this tool from the sibling discover_snacks, so it stops short of a 5.

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 implies the tool is for personalized discovery from the agent's own activity, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like discover_snacks or search_snacks. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or routing criteria beyond the mode field's partial intent labels.

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