Matching crew candidates for a job

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=true), description adds details about checks (skills, availability, travel), score breakdown, and error handling (409 for force_lead_id). 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?

Description is clear and every sentence adds value, but could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points). Still efficient with no waste.

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?

Despite no output schema, description fully explains what is returned (ranked LEAD pool, score breakdown, session plan). Complex tool with 4 parameters is well-covered.

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?

Adds meaning beyond schema: default returns LEAD pool, include_buddies returns buddy pools, include_vehicle returns vehicle list, force_lead_id checks specific technician and returns only that lead or 409. Schema coverage is 100% but description enriches semantics.

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 'Matching crew candidates for a job' and elaborates that it returns technicians who can take the job, matched and ranked. It distinguishes from a raw roster list, making the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 says when to use (for matching crew candidates) and when not (use GET /technicians for raw list). Also explains how to modify behavior with include_buddies, include_vehicle, and force_lead_id, providing clear context.

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