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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds useful context beyond that: the catalog is fixed and public, the tool only returns a catalog id, no background work starts, and the tools cannot send texts, enroll users, access accounts, or read conversations.

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 purpose and usage context are front-loaded and the description is generally efficient. There is minor repetition around returning a catalog id, but no sentence is seriously out of 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 one-parameter lookup tool with rich enum documentation, the description covers what it does, when to use it, what it returns, how it relates to get_assistant, and what side effects it does not have. No output schema is needed because the description states the return value.

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%, and the topic enum already maps every supported topic to an assistant name. The description reinforces that only a supported topic is accepted, but it does not add format or selection guidance beyond the schema.

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 verb and resource: finding a texting assistant in AutoMessage's fixed public catalog. It also distinguishes the tool from its sibling by explaining that find_assistant returns a catalog id while get_assistant returns the assistant's name, specialty, and signup page.

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?

It clearly states the triggering use case: when the user asks which assistant covers a topic. It also distinguishes the sibling's role, though it does not explicitly say when to choose get_assistant instead of find_assistant.

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