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

Annotations already declare it is a non-readonly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world write, so the bar is lower. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses the authorization requirement (editor/owner) and the exact failure mode (INSUFFICIENT_ROLE with required_roles), which annotations do not cover.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the gating constraint. No filler or redundancy; every clause earns its place.

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 an 8-parameter, 6-required mutation tool with no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description covers only the auth path. An agent still lacks guidance on the complex parameters (dimensions array, formula_type enum, formula_config weights) that are central to correct 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 0% across 8 parameters (6 required), yet the description names none of them. It does not explain dimensions, formula_type/formula_config, label, or the idempotency_key, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap as required.

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 states a specific verb (Create) and resource (custom scoring framework) with the distinguishing qualifier 'active custom'. An agent can tell this apart from hypotize_frameworks_list (the only other framework sibling) purely from the description.

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 role requirement ('editor or owner') gives a precondition for use, which is genuinely useful context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance and no exclusion of scenarios beyond the role gate.

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