Get matched with fitted agencies

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint) already declare safety and variability. The description adds that it is the same logic as the free tool and requires at least one service, but does not disclose result format or pagination. No 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?

Two clear sentences plus a concise usage section. Every sentence adds value, no wasted words.

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 7 parameters (100% schema coverage) and no output schema, the description explains purpose and usage well. It covers when to use and the required parameter, but could mention result structure or pagination for completeness.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions the required services and adds context for 'limit' (default 5), but does not significantly enhance parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 it returns a shortlist of agencies based on a buyer brief, using the same logic as the free 'Get Matched' tool. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools 'search_agencies' and 'get_agency'.

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?

Explicitly provides a 'WHEN TO USE' section with a concrete example and specifies alternatives: use 'search_agencies' for open browsing and 'get_agency' for drilling into results. It also notes the requirement for at least one service.

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