match_procedure

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions the output type but does not disclose side effects, safety, or required permissions. The agent cannot determine if this is a read-only operation.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded and to the point. Every word adds value, with no unnecessary information.

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 and schema together provide basic functionality, but the lack of output schema and examples leaves gaps. The agent may need more context about how matches are formatted or how to use the threshold parameter effectively.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already provides, but does not omit anything.

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 action ('token-overlap match'), target ('stored procedures'), and output ('ranked matches with Jaccard-like scores'). It distinguishes from many sibling search tools by specifying a particular algorithm, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like fuzzy_search, semantic_search, or other matching tools. The agent receives no help in deciding which tool to invoke.

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