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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those annotations by explaining that results are scored 0-100 and include reasons, and by clarifying the matching direction ('wants' for a 'have', 'haves' for a 'want').

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 with no filler. The core matching concept is front-loaded, and the scoring/reasons detail is stated economically.

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?

The description covers the core return semantics (score and reasons) and the matching behavior, which is useful given there is no output schema. However, it omits parameter behavior such as how limit and min_score affect results, and it does not describe the full result shape or ordering.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters, but it does not mention post_id, limit, or min_score. The '0-100 score' phrasing loosely relates to min_score, and names like post_id are self-evident, but the description does not meaningfully compensate for the absent schema descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb ('Find'), a clear resource ('counterparts for a post'), and a distinctive matching rule ('wants' for a 'have', 'haves' for a 'want'). This effectively distinguishes it from general-purpose siblings like search or get_post, even without naming them.

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 clearly states the intended use case: finding counterpart posts that match a given post's have/want status. It provides clear context, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or say when not to use this tool.

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