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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context about the return shape (services, industry page, next step), which is useful but not a behavioral trait beyond what annotations provide. There is no contradiction, and the description does not mention side effects or auth needs, but those are not needed given the read-only nature.

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, front-loaded with the action and result, followed by usage examples and a sibling preference note. Every sentence earns its place; no filler or redundancy.

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 single-parameter tool with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the description is complete. It describes what the tool returns (services, industry page, next step), which is essential given the lack of an output schema, and provides usage guidance. No critical information is missing.

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?

The input schema already describes the 'need' parameter with examples ('we need a booking system...', 'our site is slow on mobile'), and schema coverage is 100%. The description's phrase 'in plain language' adds minimal extra meaning; it does not introduce format or constraints beyond the schema. Given the high coverage, the baseline 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 clearly states the tool's function: it matches a plain-language need to Upforge services, industry page, and next step. It explicitly differentiates from the sibling get_services by saying 'Prefer this over guessing from get_services when the question is about a specific need,' making its purpose distinct and unambiguous.

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 explicit usage scenarios with example phrasings ('can they help me with ___', 'do they do ___', 'I need ___ — are they a fit') and names the alternative tool (get_services) with a clear condition for preference. This leaves no doubt about when to invoke this tool versus others.

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