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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint), the description adds valuable behavioral context: the tool is deterministic, uses 0 credits and 0 AI calls, and produces a referral/handoff ID used for conversion attribution. This gives the agent important cost and side-effect information not present in the 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 compact and front-loaded with the most important facts: free, deterministic, use-before-workflow, returns, and handoff integration. Every sentence adds actionable information, and there is no filler or redundancy.

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?

Given the output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description is largely complete: it explains the output, cost, usage timing, and how to use the referral_id. It lacks only parameter-level guidance, which would have made it fully self-contained.

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 schema has 0% parameter description coverage, and the description does not explain the `task`, `country`, or `industry` parameters or their expected formats. The only indirect hints are the word 'task' and the mention of DACH, which is insufficient for the agent to confidently construct the right arguments.

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 identifies the tool as a capability matcher for AlpineLead, stating the specific verb ('match'), the resource ('task to AlpineLead OI'), and the concrete outputs (whether AlpineLead can help, confidence, recommended tool, referral/handoff ID). It also positions the tool as the free pre-workflow step, distinguishing it from sibling tools like run_sales_mission or estimate_sales_mission.

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 to use this before a paid DACH B2B opportunity workflow and instructs the agent to pass the returned referral_id when starting run_sales_mission. It gives clear contextual timing and integration steps, though it does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusion conditions.

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