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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, but the description adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: the paid gate changes the returned payload (teaser counts vs score/grade/heatmap/priming prompts) and identifies where human axis values originate. It does not cover failure modes or what happens with mismatched refs.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and every clause carries information (dependency, value source, paid gate). Sentence two is long and em-dash-heavy, but no sentence is filler, so it stays near-optimal for the tool's complexity.

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, the description admirably discloses the two return shapes (free teaser counts vs full grade/heatmap/priming), the required dependency, and the paid condition. It omits error handling and any notion of stale or missing session data, leaving a small gap for a 5-required-parameter tool.

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 83%, so each axis parameter and paid are already documented in the schema. The description restates the four axis values and their WIA360 source, largely duplicating the schema's own '(1-5 average, from WIA360 result)' notes; it adds little new per-parameter meaning, so baseline 3 holds.

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 ('Compute the compatibility match') and grounds it in the AI session profile built via score_session, so the agent knows exactly what artifact it produces. It clearly names the sibling score_session as a data dependency but never mentions run_probe, leaving one sibling relationship undifferentiated.

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?

Gives a clear prerequisite (a session profile already built via score_session under the same session_ref) and an explicit condition for the paid flag ('only when the human has an active paid WIA360 profile'). It stops short of stating when to call get_match versus score_session/run_probe in a workflow, so no explicit exclus...(truncated).

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