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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the linguistic operations it performs. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, whether it modifies world_state, what it returns, or what side effects it may have, so an agent cannot predict the tool's full behavior.

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, tightly packed line with no filler words. The domain label 'Pragmatics:' is front-loaded, and the examples earn their place by clarifying an otherwise technical term.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description is too thin for a tool with three parameters, zero parameter descriptions, and no annotations. It lacks guidance on speaker_id and world_state, and gives no usage conditions or behavioral expectations, making it incomplete for reliable agent invocation.

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 only implicitly clarifies that 'utterance' is the linguistic input to be resolved. It provides no explanation of speaker_id or world_state, leaving two of three parameters semantically underexplained for safe invocation.

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 a specific verb and resource: it resolves indirect speech acts and anaphoric pronouns, and verifies presuppositions. The examples, such as 'ability questions to directives', make the tool's scope concrete and help distinguish it from nearby cognitive tools like parse_task or ground_language.

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 the tool: whenever an utterance involves indirect speech acts, anaphora, or presuppositions. However, it never explicitly states when not to use it or names alternative tools, leaving the agent to infer routing from the domain label rather than from direct guidance.

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