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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely new behavioral constraint beyond those annotations — 'Keep unrelated private context out of discovery' — which is a real data-handling rule the agent would not otherwise know. It still says nothing about result ordering or caps, but the output schema handles the return shape.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the handoff and the privacy caveat. Nothing is wasted, though the privacy sentence reads slightly as an aside rather than integrated guidance.

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?

Rich annotations and a present output schema reduce what the description must cover, and the workflow handoff plus privacy rule are useful additions. However, for a three-parameter tool with zero schema coverage, leaving limit and area entirely undefined is a real gap in callable completeness.

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 0% across three parameters, so the description carries the full burden and largely fails it. 'Deliverable' loosely maps to the task parameter and 'remit' loosely hints at area, but limit (1-10) is never mentioned and no parameter is explained in terms of format or effect on results.

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 ('Find worker candidates for a deliverable'), which is clearly distinct from most siblings, and it names 'prepare_specialist' as the downstream step. It does not distinguish itself from other lookup-flavored siblings such as search or get_skill, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 provides a concrete workflow: find candidates, compare their remit and outputs, then hand off to prepare_specialist for onboarding. That gives the agent clear when-to-use and next-step context, though it never states when not to use this tool or what a suitable alternative would be.

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