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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive, so the safety bar is low; the description still adds real value by disclosing that matching is based on stored instructions and skills and that results include candidate evidence and limitations. It also explicitly rules out side effects (no execution, no creation). It omits any mention of the accessibility/permission scoping mechanics or ranking confidence.

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 with the core action front-loaded and the negative scope statement trailing as a guardrail. No filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description covers purpose, matching basis, return nature, and absence of side effects. The remaining gap is the undocumented 'limit' parameter and the 'accessible' scoping rule, which is a minor but real omission.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it only loosely implies what 'task' is by reusing the word 'task' in the sentence. The 'limit' parameter (1-10) is never mentioned, nor is the expected length/detail of the task string, leaving half the parameters unexplained in both schema and prose.

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 ('Match a task to accessible deployed agents') plus the matching basis ('stored instructions and skills'), which separates it from list_agents, recommend_new_agents, and invoke_agent. The closing clause 'never runs or creates an agent' further disambiguates it from invoke_agent and create_agent_from_process.

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 a clear use context: picking among already-deployed, accessible agents for a given task, which implicitly contrasts with recommend_new_agents and create_agent_from_process. It also negates two adjacent use cases (running and creating). It does not explicitly name the alternative tool or state a 'when not to use' condition, so it stops short of a 5.

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