recommend

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions output format but does not disclose side effects, safety implications, or behavioral traits like idempotency or rate limits. It implies read-only but doesn't explicitly state.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, efficient and no fluff.

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 one nested parameter, no output schema, and 13 siblings, the description covers what, why, and when. Minor gaps: no explanation of ranking or why_match format, but sufficient for selection and invocation.

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 description lists parameter names but adds little beyond the schema: it clarifies 'any combination' optionality. With schema description coverage at 0% (context signal), it should compensate more by explaining parameter roles and formats.

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 is a constraint-driven recommendation across Hlido's reviewed agents, lists input parameters, and describes output as ranked candidates with why_match. It distinguishes itself from sibling tool trust_check.

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 instructs to use when buyer constraints exist and want a filtered shortlist instead of one-by-one trust_check calls, providing clear guidance on when to use and an alternative.

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