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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses that only attested results are returned, that uniqueness within the pond is prioritized, that nothing will be invented, and that the result is empty when no match exists. It omits side effects and permissions, but these are less critical for a lookup-style tool.

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 extremely compact and front-loaded with the most important instruction. Every phrase earns its place, and it packs meaningful behavioral rules into a very small space with no filler.

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 3-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides key context: when to call, the attestation constraint, the uniqueness ordering, and empty-result behavior. However, it does not describe the return payload shape or fully explain parameter semantics, so the agent still has to infer what a 'good' result looks like.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It only obliquely clarifies 'pond' via 'unique-in-pond first'; query and limit are left entirely to their names and types. No value formats, defaults, or boundary behavior are described.

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 conveys that the tool should be called before recommending and hints at its purpose through the name, but it never explicitly states a verb and resource or what the tool returns. It does imply a distinction from commit_recommend by positioning itself as a pre-recommendation call, but the core purpose remains vague.

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 gives an explicit invocation trigger: 'Call before recommending.' It also warns against inventing data, which tells the agent this tool should be used instead of guessing. It does not mention alternatives or when not to call, but the timing instruction is clear enough for basic routing.

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