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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains that service interest 'feeds into operator recruitment priority' and that no execution occurs, plus notes the API key requirement and verification via list_service_interests. Minor gap: no mention of whether adding interest is idempotent or can be removed, but annotations partly cover side effects.

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 longer than average but every sentence earns its place: purpose, contrast, usage, mechanism, analogy, use cases, requirements, and next steps. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the core distinction, though slightly verbose with the em-dash style and multiple clauses. No fluff.

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 tool with 7 parameters, no output schema, and relatively generic annotations, the description provides rich context: what it does, how it works, when to use it, prerequisites, optional category linkage, and follow-up actions. It fully equips the agent to decide when and how to invoke the tool, and explains the system-level effect (recruitment priority).

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the purpose of region (no location of a task but a region-level signal), referencing serviceCategoryId from list_service_categories, and noting apiKey comes from register_agent. This goes beyond the schema's field-level descriptions, making parameter semantics clearer.

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 opens with a clear, specific verb 'Signal' and resource 'a category of physical-world tasks in a region,' immediately distinguishing it from dispatching a concrete task. It explicitly contrasts with dispatch_physical_task and positions itself as a forecast/intent signal, making the purpose unmistakable even among many siblings.

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 states exactly when to use it: 'when you don't yet have a specific job but you know you will need this kind of task in this region.' It also names the alternative (dispatch_physical_task) and a similar tool (join_country_waitlist), and lists concrete use cases like long-term planning and pre-commitment, providing clear decision guidance.

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