match_task_to_achievements

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the algorithm type ('keyword matching and category cross-reference'), output limit ('top 5 matches'), and output type ('confidence scores'). No contradictions or hidden behaviors are present.

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 three sentences, each adding value: purpose, utility, and method/output. It is front-loaded with key information and contains no redundant or filler 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?

For a query-type tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool does, how it works, and what it returns. It provides enough context to differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_achievements' and 'search_tasks'. Minor gap: confidence score details are not explained, but still sufficient.

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% with both parameters already described. The description does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema. It mentions 'keywords' in the method but does clarify what constitutes a keyword. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does most of the work.

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 purpose: to match a task to potentially relevant achievements. It specifies the verb 'Match', the resources 'task to achievements', and the method ('keyword matching and category cross-reference'). It also distinguishes from siblings like 'list_achievements' which lists all achievements.

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 indicates when to use: 'Helps identify which achievements could be earned by completing specific tasks.' It implies the context but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives. However, the purpose is clear enough for an AI agent to decide.

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