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

Adds useful non-schema context: it is heuristic/keyword-based, returns a ranked list with a per-match 'reason' string, and is public with no auth required. It does not explain the readOnlyHint=false annotation, which is notable for what reads as a pure query/matching operation — but it never explicitly claims a non-mutating read, so this is a gap rather than a contradiction.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool is, followed by how to call it and the auth note. No filler, though the example list is slightly long relative to the rest.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers behavior (heuristic ranking), input shape, return shape (matched templates + reason strings), and access requirements. The only omission is guidance relative to the sibling listing/suggestion/matching tools.

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?

With one parameter at 100% schema coverage the schema already names and documents 'input'. The description goes beyond it by illustrating the expected free-text phrasing ('I run a CNC milling shop', 'I have a Postgres database with a GraphQL endpoint'), which meaningfully guides how to populate the single argument.

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 ('template matcher' that returns templates ranked by keyword score) and clarifies the input contract with concrete examples. It is distinguishable from list_templates/suggest_csd_templates in practice, though it never explicitly names those siblings.

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?

Implies usage ('pass a free-text description of what you want to onboard') with two realistic example inputs, which gives helpful context. However it never says when to prefer this over pcc_orchestrator_list_templates, suggest_csd_templates, or search_capabilities, so the routing decision 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.