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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It specifies what data is returned but does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it has side effects, requires specific permissions, or has any rate limits or failure modes. The lack of any behavioral context beyond the payload is a significant gap.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Get one force's current weekly reading') followed by a compact enumeration of the returned data. There is no redundancy, fluff, or extraneous detail, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 simple getter with one parameter and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It details exactly what is returned (weekly reading components, event limit, memo summary), which covers the agent's need to know the payload. The only missing context is usage guidance, which is already scored separately, so this dimension is well-served.

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?

The schema fully documents the single parameter 'force' with an enum and description, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter context, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. The description does not need to repeat schema details.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource ('one force') and enumerates the exact data returned: weekly reading (with week, direction, paragraphs, cited story pages), up to ten latest events, and memo section summary. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from siblings that might return different data, such as get_thesis or get_latest_update.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_latest_update or get_thesis. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or preferred scenarios. The agent is left to infer usage from the resource name and payload, which is insufficient for routing.

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