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

Annotations only cover readOnly and openWorld; the description adds substantial operational context: it makes 3 GitHub searches plus npm/PyPI lookups, is subject to a 50 calls/day hosted limit, accepts an X-GitHub-Token header for unlimited use, and can run locally via npx. These are real behavioral traits beyond structured data.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and routing, then the scoring model and operational notes. It is dense and long, but every clause is load-bearing for interpreting results; minor tightening could still help.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe returns, and it does thoroughly: 0-100 score, weighted components, tier thresholds, one-line verdict, and full breakdown. Coupled with rate limits and auth, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this 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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by defining the fitness formula (fit = score x relevance to the need) and clarifying that `need` gets reinterpreted through relevance weighting. It reinforces limit usage but adds little on language.

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 (find the best open-source library for a need) and pins the moment it applies (before adding a dependency). It also names the sibling it is not: compare_repos is for when you already have names, so it is distinguishable without opening any 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?

Explicit when-to-use ('you do not yet have candidates') and the alternative with its own condition ('use compare_repos when you already have names'). This is unambiguous routing between siblings.

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