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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint=false, idempotentHint), the description adds meaningful behavioral context: the three possible result categories, the absence of diagnosis, and the guarantee that no order is created. This helps the agent anticipate side-effect-free, deterministic behavior.

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 two sentences with no filler. The use condition is front-loaded, followed by return categories and explicit non-behaviors, earning every sentence's 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 single-parameter tool with no output schema and strong annotations, the description covers the invocation trigger, the possible return shapes, and the boundaries of behavior (no diagnosis, no order). Nothing essential is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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 schema already provides a solid description of 'summary' as a sanitized expected-versus-actual outcome with security guidance. The tool-level description does not add parameter-specific detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 action ('qualify a bounded task') and a precise target state: a buyer's sanitized problem not yet mapped to an offer. It also enumerates the possible returns (one offer ID, broader-service route, or scope-reduction decision) and distinguishes itself from order-creation or diagnosis tools, making it clearly separable from its siblings.

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 opening phrase 'Use when a buyer's sanitized problem is not yet mapped to an offer' gives an explicit precondition for invocation. It implies when-not-to-use by stating it performs no diagnosis and creates no order, though it does not name alternative tools or provide explicit exclusions.

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