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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), so the description's job is to add context — and it does, disclosing pricing semantics ('ours (seller + routing fee)'), catalog cover/wall-payability, and what each action returns (e.g. seller 'classes, venues, price, record'). It omits pagination behavior despite limit/offset params, but otherwise adds real value beyond 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?

Front-loaded with purpose and routing before the action list, and every clause carries information. The action enumeration is a dense semicolon run rather than a structured list, which is harder to scan, but there is little outright waste.

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 10-action, 25-parameter dispatcher with no required params and no output schema, the description covers what each action yields but leaves the param-to-action contract reliant on schema tags whose 'descriptions' often just restate the parameter name. Adequate but not complete for the tool's complexity.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description ties groups of parameters to actions, but that mapping is already encoded in the schema's own 'actions: ...' tags, and several opaque parameters (jev, typesafe_key, api_key, findings) get no meaningful explanation anywhere.

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+resource+scope ('finds agents, capabilities and resold skills for a job, ranked') and then enumerates all ten actions with a one-line scope for each. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from two siblings (taifoon_hire, taifoon_demand), so an agent can separate it from the rest of the toolkit without opening any schema.

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?

Explicit routing is given for the two most confusable siblings: hiring a found result goes to taifoon_hire, posting a need goes to taifoon_demand. Within the tool, action selection is only implied by terse per-action one-liners (e.g. 'match — a ranked shortlist for required_skills'), with no stated when-not conditions across the ten actions.

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