recommend_salesperson

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

Annotations already establish this is a safe read (readOnlyHint=true) and closed-world (openWorldHint=false), so the safety profile is covered. The description adds above that baseline by disclosing the ranking factors (territory coverage, workload), but says nothing about return shape, ordering guarantees, tie-breaking, or empty-result behavior for a tool with no output schema.

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?

A single tight sentence with the ranking criteria front-loaded alongside the purpose. Nothing is repeated or wasted, though it is arguably too short given the gaps noted in usage and return behavior.

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 tool is low-complexity (one required param, read-only), and annotations carry the safety profile, so the bar is modest. Still, with no output schema the description should state what an agent gets back (a ranked list of candidates), and it should distinguish recommendation from the actual assignment step. Those gaps keep it at minimum-viable completeness.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('The lead's numeric id'), so the schema fully documents it. The phrase 'for a lead' in the description merely restates this and adds no syntax, format, or semantic detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 gives a specific verb (Rank), resource (salespeople), and scope condition (for a lead), plus the ranking criteria (territory coverage, current workload). It is clear what the tool produces. However, it does not distinguish itself from the closely related sibling assign_lead, which an agent could easily confuse with an advisory ranking tool.

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 implies the context (ranking candidates for a lead) but gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing. In particular it never clarifies that this is advisory only and that the actual write action belongs to assign_lead, leaving the most likely sibling confusion unresolved.

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