recommend

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the return shape ('top 3 recommendations with match reasons, warnings, and referral links') and that it weighs multiple profile dimensions, but says nothing about permissions, whether results are deterministic, or how partial input is handled. Some behavioral value, but notable gaps for an unannotated engine.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the mechanism, then the output contract. No filler, though 'This is the core recommendation engine' slightly restates what the first sentence already conveys.

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 9-parameter, no-output-schema, no-annotation tool, the description covers purpose and return shape adequately but leaves the meaning and effect of five enum parameters undocumented. It is workable but not complete for a tool this wide.

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 only 33%, so the description should compensate, and it partially does by naming experience, budget, trading style, concerns and dealbreakers as analyzed inputs. It omits situation, supportNeeds, payoutPriority, paymentPreference and the enum semantics, leaving half the parameter surface unexplained in either place.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Get personalized futures prop firm recommendations') and identifies itself as 'the core recommendation engine,' which separates it well from get_firm, search_firms, list_firms and compare_firms. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with those siblings, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Usage is implied: an agent can infer this is the tool to call when it wants personalized picks based on trader profile inputs. However, there is no explicit when/when-not guidance and no routing to alternatives such as search_firms for browsing or compare_firms for head-to-head comparison of already-known firms.

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