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

Annotations already declare `destructiveHint: true` and `idempotentHint: true`, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond that: `not_fit` is destructive because it drops the lead, while `restore` reverses that effect. It does not explain side effects of `clarify` or what `fit` retains, but the key destructive behavior is disclosed.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and the allowed values, followed by the consequence of the two non-obvious decisions. There is no redundant text.

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 rich schema and annotations, no output schema, and the description covers the decision options and their main effects. It is nearly complete, though it could clarify what `clarify` triggers and whether `fit` has any downstream effect, leaving a minor gap.

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%, so all three parameters are already documented in the schema. The description restates the decision enum semantics already present in the schema and adds no extra syntax, format, or edge-case detail about `id` or `request_key`, 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 verb+resource ('Decide on a quest candidate (lead)') and enumerates the four possible decisions, so the agent knows what the tool does. It does not distinguish this from the sibling `decide_context_proposal`, which is a different kind of decision, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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 gives the practical consequence of two options ('not_fit drops it and lets the Bar keep matching; restore undoes not_fit'), which helps an agent choose. However, it gives no explicit when/when-not guidance, prerequisites, or comparison with alternatives such as `decide_context_proposal`, so usage is only implied.

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