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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the description's job is to add context beyond that, which it does: no API key required, no provider endorsement, only confident matches recommended, plus truncation and exclusion counts. Missing only rate-limit or freshness details.

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 purpose sentence leads, followed by endpoint and access details, then a bulleted return contract. Most of it earns its place, though the first sentence is wordy and the returns list is long without an output schema to offload that detail.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by documenting every returned field (candidates, considered, excluded, truncated, note). Combined with access notes and the no-endorsement caveat, an agent has enough to call and interpret this open-world recommendation tool correctly.

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 all six parameters, including the prefer enum and the max_price ceiling behavior, are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond implying that criteria are echoed back in the response.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb and resource: a ranked shortlist of endpoints for a capability. It is clearly distinct from siblings such as get_capability (one entry) and list_capabilities (a catalog), though it never names an alternative directly.

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 explains the ranking philosophy ('under criteria you choose', 'Only confident matches') but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It never says when to reach for this versus run_sql or get_capability directly.

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