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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious output behavior — that each recommendation carries a rationale, fit_score, caveats and a verified price — which tells the agent what quality bar to expect. Missing only operational details like result latency or whether sourcing is live.

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, no filler, with the capability stated first and the sibling routing second. Every clause earns its place.

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 format needs no explanation, and the annotations carry the safety profile. With 7 parameters at 71% coverage, a couple of bare parameters (team_size, pricing) remain unstated, but the required parameter and the core intent are fully clear.

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 71%, so most parameters are already documented in the schema, and the description's one worked example ('simple CRM for a 6-person agency that syncs Gmail') mirrors the schema's own need example rather than adding new meaning. Undescribed parameters like team_size and pricing are not clarified in prose. 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Recommend the best tools for a described need') and immediately qualifies the output shape ('justified, sourced shortlist'). It is clearly separable from search_tools and get_alternatives without opening a schema.

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 names the alternative (search_tools) and the exact condition that selects this tool: the user describes a goal or constraints rather than a keyword. This is the when-to-use/when-not pattern at full strength.

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