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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the bar is lower. The description adds a concrete, high-stakes guarantee — 'Never creates payment or another external side effect' — which goes beyond generic read-only language and is valuable in this domain. No contradiction with annotations.

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 carry all essential information: what the tool does, what it returns, and its side-effect profile. The core verb and primary modifier are front-loaded. No filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

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?

The description covers the basics: purpose, major return fields, and safety. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not clarify what 'fit' or 'readiness' means or how to interpret the results. It also lacks explicit routing guidance relative to sibling tools, leaving the agent with a serviceable but incomplete picture.

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%, so the description must compensate by explaining `intent`. It does not explicitly define what an intent should be, provide format examples, or mention the length constraints. The param name and tool name offer some inference, but the description itself adds little semantic value.

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 specific action — 'match a problem to Evercraft public capabilities' — with a clear verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_evercraft_capabilities by focusing on matching a problem rather than enumerating options.

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 description implies the tool is used when an agent has a problem/intent and needs capability fit, but it never explicitly says when to use this over the siblings. It does not mention alternatives or exclusion criteria, leaving the choice to inference.

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