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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does convey the core behavior: auditing content against Gricean maxims and flagging deception. However, it discloses no behavioral context such as whether the tool is read-only, how it handles internal consistency among claims/beliefs/goals, or what a deception determination means.

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 one compact sentence with useful specifics (Gricean maxims, deception) and little waste. It could be slightly more structured by leading with a verb phrase, but it 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?

The core call (content) is obvious and an output schema exists, but with no annotations and no parameter guidance the description leaves room for confusion about optional inputs that shape the analysis. It is minimally adequate for selecting the tool but not fully sufficient for correct invocation in nuanced cases.

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%, and the description does not map any of the seven parameters to their roles, leaving optional but contextually important fields like claims, context_goals, speaker_beliefs, and act_type to be inferred from names alone. This does not meet the compensation burden for a low-coverage schema.

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 identifies a specific operation ('audit speech acts') against named Gricean maxims and adds deception detection, so an agent can recognize the tool's core function. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the adjacent sibling cognitive.analyze_communication, and the leading 'Pragmatic communication:' is more label than verb-led statement.

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?

No text explains when to choose this tool over cognitive.theory_of_mind, cognitive.assess_competence, or the near-duplicate cognitive.analyze_communication. The only guidance is implied by the phrase 'Pragmatic communication'; there are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing.

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