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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld=false, so safety basics are covered. The description adds a non-obvious negative boundary ('does not create checkout, payment, obligations, accounts, access, or paid work'), clarifying the output is recommendations only, not side effects. It doesn't disclose ranking behavior or return format, keeping it below a 5.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. The 'Read-only' safety note and the negative-boundary list each earn their place by preventing misuse; no filler.

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 2-param read-only match tool with a 100%-covered schema and no output schema, the description covers purpose and boundaries adequately. However, it leaves out what a 'match' returns (ranked results, scoring, limit default behavior beyond schema) and does not contrast with list_evercraft_capabilities, which would help an agent choose correctly.

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% – both 'intent' and 'limit' are fully described in the schema, so baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax, format, or semantics beyond what the schema already provides for these parameters.

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 (match) and resource (published Evercraft capabilities) with the input ('user problem or goal') named explicitly. Siblings list_evercraft_capabilities and get_evercraft_connection_options describe different operations (listing catalog vs. connection options), so this tool's 'matching to a problem' purpose is distinguishable.

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 use case (when you have a user problem/goal to route), but it does not explicitly state when to use this vs. list_evercraft_capabilities (browse vs. match) or when not to use it. No alternatives are named despite two clear sibling candidates.

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