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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds domain behavior (the rubric is consumed by an LLM judge or by code checks) but says nothing about what happens on creation — returned id, whether it must be attached to an eval separately, or the approvalId confirmation path mentioned in the schema.

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?

Three dense sentences with no filler, and the core verb+resource is front-loaded before the enum detail. The parenthetical enumeration of check types is long but each item is load-bearing; the closing style-guide sentence is the only part that leans toward advice rather than definition.

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 6-parameter create tool with a nested criteria array and no output schema, the description covers the substance of the criteria model well and matches the annotations. It leaves the lifecycle gap — how the created rubric is linked to an eval and what the caller gets back — unexplained.

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?

With 67% schema coverage, the description still meaningfully augments the schema: it explains that kind=check runs "in code with no judge" and enumerates the check types, which the schema lists without explanation. It does not add anything for workspace, approvalId, or the top-level description parameter, which carry thin or no schema descriptions.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Creates the scoring rubric") and immediately situates it in the domain ("an eval's LLM judge uses"), which cleanly separates it from sibling read/update/delete rubric tools. The elaboration of the three criterion kinds makes the purpose concrete rather than tautological.

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 useful content guidance ("Write criteria about the FLOW'S JOB ... not generic 'quality'"), which is real how-to-use advice, but never names when to choose this over caliper_rubrics_update, nor states prerequisites. Usage is implied by context (you create a rubric before an eval can judge) rather than stated.

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