match_success_probability

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

With no annotations, the description properly discloses that the tool is deterministic, handles unknown signals neutrally, and flags them. It does not mention authentication or side effects, but as a computational tool, the behavioral transparency is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 long, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds essential information. No extraneous text, making it highly efficient for an AI agent to parse.

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?

Given the complexity (4 parameters, nested object) and absence of annotations, the description provides the core functionality and output form but lacks details on limitations, return value structure (despite having an output schema), or when to invoke it in a workflow. Adequate but could be more comprehensive.

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% (4 parameters documented). The description adds value by explaining how the parameters are combined (fit_score with recency, competition proxy, etc.) and the default behavior for missing signals, which goes beyond the schema's type definitions.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: estimate application success probability deterministically. It specifies the verb "Estimate" and the resource "application success probability". However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like match_score, which may perform a similar role.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., match_score, analytics tools). The description lacks context about prerequisites, when the tool is most appropriate, or when it should be avoided.

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