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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully discloses the key behavioral variation — no topic yields an overview while a topic yields 'the full detail on one subject' from 'the app's Task Guide'. However, it says nothing about response format, size, or what happens on an invalid topic name.

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, front-loaded with what the tool provides before the routing instruction. The second sentence is dense but each clause carries information (the subject list, the Task Guide source). Little waste, though slightly packed.

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 single-optional-parameter documentation tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the essential elements: what content is returned, when to call it, and how the topic parameter changes scope. It could add the return format and handling of unrecognized topics, but nothing critical to correct invocation is missing.

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% and the schema already lists the exact topic values, so the baseline is 3. The description essentially mirrors those values ('fields, scoring, composite, chaining, documents, examples, best_practices, or a scoring mode name') and adds only the framing that a topic returns expanded detail, which is marginal value over the schema.

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 it returns guidance on writing an OpenMark task ('the YAML structure, all 18 scoring modes, and tips'), which is a specific resource. It implicitly separates itself from validate_task by being the 'how to write' reference rather than a checker, but it never names that sibling, so the differentiation is only inferable.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger: 'Call this before writing a task.' It also explains the topic parameter's role in routing to detail. It stops short of naming when NOT to use it or pointing to specific alternatives (e.g., validate_task after drafting), so it is clear context without exclusions.

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