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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that scoring uses 'five weighted criteria,' but does not disclose the output format, scoring range, or any other behavior beyond what the annotations and schema already provide.

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 first sentence is front-loaded and efficient, clearly stating the tool's purpose. The second sentence is a link to an external full version, which is concise but not directly useful for tool invocation.

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?

For a simple input-only calculator with five required enums, no nested objects, and no output schema, the description is adequate for invocation but omits the return value shape or scoring scale. An agent can supply inputs, but cannot anticipate what the tool will return.

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 100% and all five parameters are enum-described with their weights. The description names the same five criteria but adds no syntax, format, or nuance beyond what the schema already documents, so this meets the 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 states a precise verb ('Score'), a specific resource ('message-match continuity between an ad and its landing page'), and the exact dimensions being assessed. It distinguishes this tool from other graders and auditors by focusing narrowly on ad-to-page continuity.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling scoring and auditing tools. Usage is only implied by the purpose statement, and no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools are named.

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