athena_cohesion_matchmake

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the tool is 'advisory' and 'deterministic', and details what it does NOT do (never creates claims, assignments, party membership, or truth authority). This goes beyond the schema and sets clear expectations for a side-effect-free 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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence packs the core functionality and influencing factors, while the second explicitly disclaims side effects. Every clause adds value, making it efficient and well-structured for an expert agent.

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 the tool's complexity, lack of annotations, no output schema, and 4 parameters, the description should explain the return format and parameter usage. It only covers purpose and non-mutation, leaving critical invocation details (e.g., what does 'advisory' output look like, how are parameters interpreted) unspecified. This is incomplete for safe and correct 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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only hints at 'need_id' via 'one active NEED', but completely omits semantics for 'limit', 'remote', and 'shared_remote_mode'. The enum and bounds in the schema provide no meaningful usage context, leaving the agent without guidance on how these parameters affect matchmaking.

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 performs 'advisory deterministic matchmaking' for an active need, using explicit offer envelopes and various fit factors. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly noting it never creates claims, assignments, or party membership, making its non-mutating scope 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?

The description conveys when to use the tool: when advisory, non-mutating matchmaking is needed. The negative constraints (never creates claims, assignments, etc.) provide clear when-not guidance. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., athena_cohesion_request_offer or athena_party_form) that do create these artifacts, so it falls 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.