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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states it is read-only, safe to retry, and paid ($0.05/call). It also reveals behavioral nuance: scores compress into a 70-90 band, so raw percent is misleading—an important caution for the agent. This is comprehensive for a non-destructive tool.

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 exactly two sentences with no filler. The core action and output are front-loaded; the extra conditions and interpretation guidance follow logically. Every word 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 description covers the main function, conditional behavior, result interpretation, cost, and safety. It lacks an explicit return format, but given the absence of an output schema, it provides enough for an agent to understand what to expect. It could mention that taxonomy and category are required together, but the wording 'With taxonomy and category' implies that.

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. The description adds meaning by explaining that supplying both taxonomy and category triggers the extended output, which is not obvious from the schema alone. It also repeats the phrase-bank semantics but does not add syntax details beyond the 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 opens with a clear verb-resource pairing: 'Scores text against every category in all six taxonomies.' It also specifies the output (top rows per taxonomy) and the conditional extended output, distinguishing it from sibling tools like find, gate, phrases, and taxonomies.

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 implicit usage context: it notes that providing taxonomy and category enables extended output, and it advises interpreting results via rank/gap rather than raw percent. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use this tool, leaving some routing to the user.

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