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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail by specifying the return content: matching jobs, their status levels, supporting tests, and an explicit negative answer when unsupported. 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that packs purpose, scope, and output details without wasted words. Every clause contributes useful 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?

With no output schema, the description appropriately explains the return values (statuses, tests, explicit unsupported answer). It is complete for a low-complexity lookup tool with strong annotations, though it omits minor details like limit behavior.

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 50%: query has a description, limit does not. The description reinforces the query semantics ('can this framework do X?') but does not explain the limit parameter. It adds some meaning beyond the schema but does not fully compensate for the undocumented 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 uses a specific verb ('Answer') and names a precise resource ('CRM jobs-to-be-done index'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like get_capability and search_docs. It also explains the output categories, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 clearly states when to use the tool: when the user asks 'can this framework do X?'. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions relative to siblings, but the usage context is strong enough to guide selection.

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