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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the outcome vocabulary (met/unmet/unknown) and the no-side-effect claim about leads, which is mildly additive, but it omits any auth or scope constraints.

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?

Three short sentences, outcome first, exclusion last, with zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing a distinct fact.

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?

Because an output schema exists, the description needn't detail return values, and its safety profile is covered by annotations. The remaining gap is parameter guidance for two required inputs at 0% schema coverage, which leaves the agent guessing about offeringId and requirement shape.

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% and neither required parameter is explained: offeringId (enum-constrained to 'docks') and the requirements array (key/expected/required, max 30) are invisible from the description. 'Check buyer requirements against evidence' only loosely gestures at the requirements parameter and says nothing about what offeringId selects.

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 (check/assess) and resource (buyer requirements against evidence), plus the three possible outcomes. 'Does not create a lead' separates it from the write-oriented siblings prepare_inquiry and submit_inquiry, though no sibling is named directly.

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?

'Does not create a lead' implies this is the pre-inquiry assessment step rather than the lead-creation step, which is a useful when-not signal. However, it never says when to reach for this versus prepare_inquiry or get_inquiry_status, so routing is left to inference.

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