GAIP Opportunity Broker

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes further by enumerating the side effects explicitly excluded (no outreach, appointment, ranking, contract or payment), which is real added context about what the call will and will not trigger. It stops short of describing the returned preflight outcome or any rate/auth constraints.

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?

A single tight sentence with no filler and the operation front-loaded. However, the density of unexplained domain terms ('preflight', 'broker', 'candidates') makes it terse at the expense of comprehension rather than genuinely concise.

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 7-parameter tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description should explain at minimum what a successful preflight yields and how the continuity handle and candidate objects are shaped. None of that is present, so an agent cannot call this correctly from the description alone.

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% across 7 parameters including a nested continuity_handle object, so the description carries the full burden and largely fails it. Only 'public' loosely maps to data_classification's PUBLIC enum, and 'candidates' is named but never explained; task_class, episode_id, synthetic, independent_operator_id and the continuity handle are all undocumented.

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 verb 'preflight' is unusual jargon and the description never states what the tool actually produces or verifies (a validation result, a report, a boolean?). The object 'public agent candidates' is identifiable, and the negative list ('without outreach, appointment, ranking, contract or payment') does sharpen the boundary of the operation. Adequate but the core purpose is left to inference.

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?

No explicit when-to-use statement, prerequisites, or ordering guidance. The phrase 'without outreach, appointment... payment' implies this is a non-committing pre-check run before committing actions, but the agent must infer that. There are no siblings to differentiate against, yet the description still offers no trigger conditions.

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