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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond them: it discloses the output shape (match, assistant action, suggested plan, prefilled sign-up link) and hints at the downstream workflow. It does not discuss input constraints or failure modes, but the annotation profile lowers the bar.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the input and then enumerates the four returned artifacts with no wasted words.

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 two-parameter read-only matcher with no output schema, the description covers input intent and output contents well enough to invoke it correctly. It could mention input length limits or language fallback, but the core contract is complete.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters and the language enum. The description adds meaning by explaining that the description is a short business blurb and that its text is used to prefill the sign-up link, which connects the input to an output effect beyond the schema.

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 (match) and resource (business to a use case) and details exactly what it returns: closest use case, what the assistant would do, a suggested plan, and a prefilled sign-up link. It is clearly distinguishable from static siblings like get_faq, get_pricing, and list_use_cases, which return fixed content rather than a computed 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 implies usage (you provide a business description and get a tailored match) but never says when to prefer this over get_use_case or list_use_cases, nor when it is inappropriate. Sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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