Recommend frameworks for a need

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes on the behavioral disclosure burden. It explains the output is ranked, includes adjacent framework pairing, and explicitly returns a 'TOGAF alone is enough' answer in the right case. It could go further by stating read-only behavior or ranking criteria, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 compact: two short sentences per language, with the main behavior front-loaded and the fallback condition second. There is no filler or redundant content.

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 input type, the output shape, and the special fallback case, which is sufficient for a recommendation tool without an output schema. It could be slightly richer with an example of a returned recommendation, but nothing essential is missing.

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 parameters are already well documented in the schema. The description only rephrases the 'need' parameter and adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 names a specific verb and resource: from a free-text need, return which part of TOGAF to use and which adjacent frameworks to pair with it, ranked. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings, since no other sibling claims this recommendation function.

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?

It states the clear input context: a free-text need, and it even defines the fallback behavior when TOGAF alone is enough. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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