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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral transparency burden. It discloses that the subject text may be logged, which is a useful transparency. It also details the return structure (verdict, doom clock, etc.), but does not specify other behavioral aspects like rate limits, authorization needs, or whether the operation is mutable. Nonetheless, the logging disclosure and output structure add value.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the main action. It provides a comprehensive list of output components without excessive verbosity. It earns its length by adding value, though it could be slightly more concise by omitting minor details.

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 a single required parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is highly complete. It explains what the tool does, what outputs to expect, and even includes a note about logging. It adequately covers all necessary context for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description repeats the parameter's purpose ('the company, product, or thesis to assess') but does not add further semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides. No additional syntax, constraints, or examples are given, so the description does not meaningfully enhance parameter understanding.

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: stress-test a company, product, or thesis against the Blast Radius 'Frontier Line' framework. It provides a specific verb ('assess', 'stress-test') and a clear resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'ask_blast_radius' or 'get_diligence_checklist'.

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 explains when to use this tool (for adversarial survivability assessment) and lists the expected outputs, implying usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide direct comparisons to alternative tools, though the unique framework focus serves as implicit guidance.

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