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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: it stores nothing, calls no LLM, returns only matching teams with reasons and inferred defaults, and ends with a 'Start this brief' link. This is strong disclosure for a tool whose safety profile is already covered by annotations.

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 compact and front-loads the core action, eligibility scope, and return behavior. The final sentence about the 'Start this brief' link is useful but slightly less essential to correct invocation. Overall, it avoids wasted language while remaining dense with relevant detail.

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 no output schema and only moderate parameter documentation, the description does a good job explaining the return shape: only matching teams, with reasons and inferred defaults. It also clarifies side effects (stores nothing) and model usage (no LLM). The main remaining gap is that the optional title parameter is not explained anywhere.

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 coverage is 67%, so the schema already documents the main brief and language parameters. The description adds a useful length constraint for the required brief parameter and mentions inferred defaults, but it says nothing about the optional title parameter, leaving one parameter undocumented in both schema and description.

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 clearly states the specific action and resource: matching a draft brief against eligible anonymous teams to return only matching teams. It adds useful scope details such as brief length, reasons, and inferred defaults. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from a potentially similar sibling like preview_teams.

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 this is for shortlisting teams from a draft brief, likely before publishing, and mentions that it uses the same derivation/matcher as publishing. But it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it name any sibling tools or exclusions.

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