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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds real context by calling this a 'preview' and noting it 'works keyless,' implying no auth requirement. However, it says nothing about what the preview actually returns (candidate pack shape), whether the match is deterministic, or how the preview relates to an eventual hire/launch.

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 clauses, front-loaded with the purpose, then the routing rule, then the auth note. No filler; every sentence carries distinct information.

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 preview tool with no output schema, the description should convey what the agent gets back and what to do next, but it stops at 'candidate KOL pack.' With 4 optional params and no required fields, an agent knows how to call it but not how to interpret or act on the result.

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 100% with clear constraints (name 2–32, ticker 2–13, seats 1–8 default 5, description ≤204), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only echoes the same three inputs as 'name/ticker/vibe' and adds no format, synergy, or prioritization semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 token name/ticker/vibe to a candidate KOL pack') and scopes it as a preview. It also names the sibling it is not, so an agent can distinguish it from crew_list_kols without opening either 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 routes the agent: 'Prefer explicit crew selection via crew_list_kols; Autohire is a fallback.' This gives both the preferred alternative and the condition under which this tool is chosen, which is exactly the when/when-not guidance an agent needs.

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