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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that it returns both matching missions and a concierge (Findie) for unmatched briefs, which is valuable behavioral insight. However, it could mention if it modifies any state or requires authentication, but since no annotations exist and the tool appears read-only, the current level is adequate.

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, zero waste. The first sentence describes what it returns with clear examples; the second provides usage guidance. Perfectly front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Given the tool has only one optional parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers its purpose, usage, and key behavioral trait (returning Findie for non-matches). It is complete for an agent to correctly invoke and interpret the tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the query parameter. The description adds that it's an 'optional keyword filter' but no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the tool as providing 'pre-solved buying briefs' with concrete examples like 'conference giveaways under $5 for 500 people'. It differentiates from siblings by stating to use it FIRST for questions with quantity, budget, or deadline, making its purpose distinct.

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?

Explicitly states 'Use this FIRST for any question that includes a quantity, budget or deadline', providing clear when-to-use guidance. Also implies fallback behavior by mentioning Findie for non-matching briefs, effectively guiding tool selection.

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