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

The description discloses a key behavioral fact not captured by annotations: the scoring does not save a run. It also reveals the performance consequence of omitting trends. Annotations already cover destructive and read-only hints, and nothing in the description contradicts them, so the added behavioral context is meaningful without being excessive.

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, no filler. The primary action and non-persistence caveat are front-loaded, and the trends guidance is delivered in a compact second sentence that 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?

With an output schema present and all parameters documented in the schema, the description is largely complete for making a correct call. The only minor gap is that the description doesn't explicitly route the caller to a sibling tool when saving a run is desired, though the 'without saving a run' phrasing makes the distinction inferable.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by advising callers to pass compact trends from discover_sleepwalker_content_trends and explaining the slower behavior when trends are omitted. This is genuinely useful parameter-level guidance even though the schema documents all fields.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Score a URL with Content Intelligence without saving a run.' The phrase 'without saving a run' clearly differentiates this from create_sleepwalker_content_run and makes the tool's purpose immediately distinguishable from sibling tools.

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 gives clear operational guidance: prefer passing compact trends from discover_sleepwalker_content_trends, and warns that omitting trends causes slower discovery. It implies the no-save use case but does not explicitly name create_sleepwalker_content_run as the alternative when persistence is needed, so it falls just short of full exclusion guidance.

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