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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond these annotations: it discloses that matches are candidate-level, that detail is per-signal, and that the output is a candidate list intended for the merge process. This goes beyond simply restating 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 two sentences with the core function front-loaded and the workflow significance in the second sentence. It is appropriately sized, though the parenthetical 'Patent 4 §6.25(b)' reference is cryptic and adds little agent-facing value; the text is still concise overall.

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 read-only, idempotent tool with fully documented optional parameters, the description covers the essential context: what it finds, what signals it uses, and how the output relates to the merge workflow. It does not spell out the exact return shape, but the absence of an output schema and the 'per-signal match detail' phrasing provide sufficient orientation.

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%, and the schema descriptions already explain each parameter well, including the preferred worker_id anchor, the threshold default, and the orphan flag behavior. The description does not add much parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Find candidate same-person worker records', which is much more specific than a generic list or search. It also names the concrete signals (phone reuse, name similarity, GPS pattern correlation) and explicitly positions the tool as feeding the merge workflow, distinguishing it from merge_workers and list_workers without needing to open schemas.

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 provides clear context for when this tool is appropriate: it surfaces duplicate candidates for identity resolution and feeds the merge workflow. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the workflow cue is strong enough for an agent to infer the intended usage.

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