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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only lists return fields but omits details on authentication, rate limits, selection logic, failure scenarios, or potential side effects, leaving significant gaps.

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 concise with two sentences that front-load the main purpose. It is well-structured and easy to parse, though it could be slightly more informative without sacrificing brevity.

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 tool has six parameters and no output schema, the description is too brief. It lacks critical context such as selection criteria, behavior when no agent matches, error handling, and return format, making it incomplete for reliable agent use.

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 only 17%, yet the description adds no explanations for parameters like maxPrice, minScore, onlyVerified, or onlyRegistered. The description mentions 'intent' but does not compensate for the lack of schema descriptions for the other five parameters.

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 states the tool picks the single best agent for an intent in one call and lists the returned fields. It is specific about the verb and resource, but lacks explicit differentiation from sibling tools like mainstreet_compare or mainstreet_match.

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 includes a usage guideline ('Use when you want to act immediately.') but does not specify when not to use the tool or mention alternative tools, leaving the agent without comprehensive decision support.

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