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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so this is a mutating, non-idempotent operation, yet the description reads like a lookup and never says what record is written or what happens on a repeat call. With annotations only carrying generic safety flags, the description should disclose whether an existing match is overwritten and what preconditions exist.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, though the embedded parenthetical is grammatically awkward and slightly obscures the subject.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, but for a non-idempotent mutation the description omits what is created or changed, whether the match persists beyond the call, and how conflicts are resolved. That leaves an agent unable to predict the effect of invoking it.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden, and it does loosely map all three parameters: tool (the coding tool), external_id (the name or id it reports), and email (the person's address). It nonetheless adds no constraint detail such as the 16-character limit on tool or whether tool is a slug from coding_tools.

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 verb ("matches") and a specific resource (an external name/id reported by a coding tool) resolved to "a person's email", which is more concrete than the title's awkward "Say who a tool's name is". However, it never clarifies what "matching" produces or persists, and it does not distinguish this from siblings like set_key_owner or teams_and_people.

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 parenthetical "(from teams_and_people, show matching)" hints at where the input originates, which implicitly tells the agent to call teams_and_people first. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance and no named alternative for other ownership paths.

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