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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, idempotent operation. The description adds context by specifying that it 'Returns public guide and playbook links only' and warns against exposing paid content, which is a behavioral trait beyond the annotations. This is useful but does not describe the return format fully.

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?

The description is a single sentence that front-loads the usage condition ('Use this when...') followed by a short clause about returns and a second sentence with an exclusion. It is concise and to the point, though the list of problem domains is lengthy but necessary for clarity.

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 matching tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, the input (problem), and the output type (public links). However, it misses key details: the 'limit' parameter is ignored, there is no information about what happens when no match is found, and the return format is vague (just 'links'). Given the safe annotations, these gaps are not critical but still leave room for improvement.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage for its two parameters (problem and limit). The description elaborates on 'problem' by stating it is a description of an operations problem involving various topics, which gives some meaning. However, the 'limit' parameter is not explained at all. With both parameters undocumented in the schema, the description fails to fully compensate, especially for limit.

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 clearly states the tool matches a contractor problem to a playbook, using a specific verb (match) and resource (contractor problem to playbook). It lists the types of problems covered, making the purpose distinct. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools (discover_field_playbooks, get_field_playbook), so it's not a perfect 5.

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 explicitly says 'Use this when a contractor or home-service business describes an operations problem...' which gives a clear condition for use. It also provides a negative guideline: 'Do not use it to expose paid playbook contents.' This is helpful, though it does not mention alternative tools or when to choose this over siblings.

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