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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states the core behavior—auditing speech acts and detecting deception—but it does not disclose any assumptions, limitations, confidence levels, or processing caveats beyond that.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that starts with the domain ('Pragmatic communication') and immediately states the action and target. Every word earns its place and there is no filler.

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 seven parameters, no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too sparse for reliable invocation. The output schema exists, so return values are less of a concern, but the roles of the optional parameters and the expected content format are not addressed at all.

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%, so the description must compensate for the seven parameters. It only hints at 'speech acts' (likely mapping to act_type) and 'deception' (possibly claims), while leaving content, sender_id, recipient_id, context_goals, and speaker_beliefs completely unexplained.

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 uses a specific verb ('audit') tied to a clear resource ('speech acts against Gricean maxims') and adds the distinct function 'detect deception.' This clearly separates it from the many sibling cognitive tools, none of which mention Gricean maxims or deception detection.

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 intended use is implied: an agent should call this when it needs to audit communication pragmatically or detect deception. However, the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings like theory_of_mind or resolve_intent, nor does it give any exclusions or alternatives.

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