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

The description reveals the tool returns a shortlist with reasoning, which is the key behavioral aspect. No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden; it could be improved by explicitly stating it is read-only and does not modify data, but the stated behavior is clear and sufficient.

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?

Two sentences: the first immediately states the tool's core function, the second adds usage context. No filler, perfectly front-loaded.

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?

The tool has no output schema, no annotations, and nested parameters. The description is minimal; it does not explain how tools are selected, error cases, or the domain of tools. It provides enough to use but not full 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?

The schema covers both parameters with descriptions, and the tool description adds context for the 'context' parameter by tying it to the usage scenario. The added value is marginal, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate given 50% schema coverage.

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 tool provides a precise shortlist of 3-5 tools with reasoning, and distinguishes itself for 'I know my stack, give me the right tool' queries. This specific verb and output differentiate it from sibling tools like compare_tools or get_tool.

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 specifies that context is required and targets users who know their stack, giving clear when-to-use guidance. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use this tool.

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