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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the core operations (analyze payoff matrices, compute equilibria, execute policies) but does not disclose important behaviors such as whether the tool mutates any state, requires authentication, or what happens with missing optional parameters. A tool that executes policies likely has side effects, but this is not clarified, which is a gap given no annotations.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the main purpose and lists three concrete operations. It is efficient with no fluff, though it could benefit from a brief parameter note. The structure is appropriately succinct.

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 complexity (7 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no enums) and an output schema present, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the input parameters, the expected output, or provide guidance on how to use the tool correctly. Agents would likely need to inspect the schema and guess semantics, which is risky for a tool that executes policies. More details on parameter usage and prerequisites are needed.

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, but it does not explain any of the 7 parameters. The description mentions 'game payoff matrices' but does not clarify how parameters like 'endowments' or 'multiplier' feed into that. Agents are left to infer parameter meaning from names alone, which is insufficient for subtle fields like 'my_history' and 'partner_history'.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: analyzing game payoff matrices, computing Nash/Pareto equilibria, and executing reciprocity policies. This is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like cognitive.compose_strategies and cognitive.propose_strategy, which focus on strategy creation rather than analysis. However, it does not name these siblings explicitly, so a 5 is not warranted.

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 implies when to use this tool (when analyzing cooperation in multi-agent settings), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. For instance, it could note that strategy creation should use cognitive.propose_strategy. This lack of explicit routing keeps it at a 3.

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