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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does so thoroughly. It reveals that each hook must cite one source with a verbatim opener, timestamps, view observations, known-non-ad proof, and a caveated virality receipt; that copied wording is rejected; that quality is explicitly unmeasured; that hooks are never padded; and that idempotent replays return the stored terminal uncharged. It also lists applicable gates and error types.

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 front-loads the core purpose, then packs high-value behavioral constraints, idempotency semantics, a health gate, and an error list into a compact block. It is dense but not bloated; the main sentence is long but each clause 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?

Given the tool is complex with 19 parameters and no annotations, the description supplies critical context that structured fields alone would not provide: evidence citation requirements, novelty enforcement, replay behavior, gating, and error taxonomy. The output schema covers return shape, but the description could be even stronger by explicitly routing around sibling tools like generate_hooks.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides and actually misstates requiredness: it says "idempotency_key is REQUIRED," while the schema marks it optional (default null) and says omitting it creates a fresh charged operation. That contradiction is misleading enough to lower the score below baseline.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "Write original hooks derived from verified viral source evidence." This clearly distinguishes synthesize_hooks from sibling tools like generate_hooks by emphasizing source-derived, evidence-cited, original hooks with a lexical novelty guard. An agent can tell what this tool does without opening the schema.

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 gives clear operational context: idempotency_key behaves as a replay guard, a live health posture must return hook_synthesis_enabled, and evidence/LLM gates apply before synthesis. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or say when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a 5. Still, the usage conditions are concrete enough to guide invocation.

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