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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one behavioral fact beyond that – analysis is performed statically, without running simulations – which signals low cost and no execution side effects. It says nothing about processing time, limits, or what happens when optional params are omitted, so the added context is thin.

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 front-loaded sentence that states the action, the outputs, and the key constraint with zero filler. Nothing is redundant with the title 'Analyze Agent' and no sentence is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries some of the return-value burden, and it does indicate the shape of results (weaknesses plus improvement recommendations). With only 3 params at full schema coverage, the inputs are well covered. It is close to complete, though it could clarify the difference between the static analysis output and metric-enriched output when promptId is supplied.

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 all three parameters (prompt, promptId, customerId) are already fully documented in the schema, including the superadmin restriction on customerId. The description adds no additional semantics about parameter formats, interactions, or defaults. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('analyze') and resource ('an agent's system prompt structure') and states the outputs ('weaknesses', 'improvement recommendations'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from 'simulate_agent' by noting it works 'without running simulations'. It does not differentiate from other analysis-adjacent siblings such as refresh_agent_analysis or get_agent_status, so it falls short of 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?

The phrase 'without running simulations' implies usage via contrast with simulate_agent, giving the agent a useful implicit routing cue. However, there is no explicit 'use this when' statement, no exclusions against the many other agent tools (get_agent, refresh_agent_analysis), and no prerequisites for the optional historical-metrics path. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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