landing_match

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

With zero annotations, the description carries the burden and does add real behavioral facts: it operates on supplied text only, and 'Default demo mode uses synthetic heuristic decisions, never Jev' warns that demo output is fabricated rather than coming from the real decision engine. However, it discloses nothing about what live mode does, side effects, or response semantics, so coverage is partial.

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?

Two sentences with zero filler, so it is efficiently compact. But the negative-first structure spends the front-loaded position on what the tool is not, leaving no room for what it does.

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 4-parameter tool with nested input, mode/provider switches, no annotations, and no output schema, a caveat list is not enough. Missing are the core purpose, return-value semantics, live-mode behavior, and any differentiation from six sibling tools, making this inadequate for reliable selection and 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?

Schema description coverage is only 25% (just the input object), and the description compensates for almost none of the gap. It clarifies that mode=demo yields synthetic decisions, but provider ('typesafe' vs 'openrouter') and confidence_threshold are left semantically empty in both schema and description; input's own description defers to examples that are not shown.

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 is built entirely from negatives — 'Supplied text only. No page fetching or visual, legal, tracking, accessibility, or conversion audit' — and never states a positive verb+resource. The actual operation (matching landing-page text against brand/ICP context) must be inferred from the tool name and the input schema, so the purpose is vague rather than stated.

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 choose landing_match over its siblings (ad_tags, survival, briefs, search_terms, fatigue, leads). The exclusions weakly imply 'bring your own text rather than a URL' and 'don't expect an audit,' but no alternative tool is named and no selection condition is given.

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