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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly discloses that per-item parse failures are returned inline and that the batch never fails as a whole, which is crucial for error handling. It also explains that weights apply to every entity, going beyond the schema's basic type description.

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 two sentences plus a short fragment, with the most important information (batch scoring, capacity) front-loaded. There is no redundant or filler content; every sentence 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?

Given the moderate complexity (batch scoring with optional weights) and the absence of an output schema, the description covers the key behaviors: capacity, inline parse failure handling, overall failure semantics, and the meaning of the optional weights. It does not specify the success return format, which is a minor gap, but overall it is sufficiently complete for reliable use.

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 description coverage is 50% (only `weights` has a description). The description adds behavioral meaning to `weights` ('re-weights every entity in the call') and clarifies `entity_ids` by stating 'up to 200 entities', which aligns with the maxItems constraint. This compensates for the schema gaps without fully detailing the entity ID format (though the example helps).

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 a specific action ('Scores up to 200 entities') and resource ('entities'), and distinguishes it from single-entity scoring tools like sigil_score_entity via the 'one round-trip' batch scope. It also adds contextual framing ('supply sources during campaign setup') that reinforces its unique role.

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 a usage context ('evaluating many supply sources during campaign setup') that implies when to use the batch tool over a single-entity alternative. However, it does not explicitly state exclusions or directly name alternatives, so it stops short of full guidance.

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