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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, but the description adds genuinely new context: no account, tracking, inference or forwarding is involved, and it previews the response contents (reasons, requirements, first actions, NO_MATCH). No contradiction with 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?

Three short sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no filler. The middle sentence is a dense negated list, but each clause removes a real ambiguity about side effects.

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, and the description compensates by naming what comes back plus the NO_MATCH sentinel, and by bounding the side-effect envelope. The remaining gap is the opaque enum parameter space, which the description never touches.

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% for 4 parameters, two of which are enums, so the description carries the full burden. It only echoes 'goal and capabilities' and says nothing about the goal/capabilities enum vocabularies, the 'access' modes, the 1-10 limit, or that every parameter is optional.

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 voluntary Genius contribution opportunities', scoped by an explicit goal and capabilities. It does not name any sibling, though the 'Read only: no execution' clause implicitly separates it from run_demo and submit_contribution.

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?

It implies the trigger condition ('for an explicit goal and capabilities') and rules out execution, which weakly routes the agent away from the write/run siblings. However, no alternative is named and there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not statement.

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