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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the phrase 'against the published ACI corpus', which hints at a static dataset but does not disclose output behavior, error conditions, or effects of incomplete inputs. With annotations covering safety, the description contributes little additional behavioral transparency.

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 sentence with no filler or redundant phrasing. It front-loads the action and object. It is appropriately concise, though its brevity contributes to the lack of contextual completeness.

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 tool has a complex, deeply nested input schema and no output schema. The description is too sparse to cover what the agent needs to know: what 'evaluate' returns, how results are formatted, how incomplete situations are handled, or any error behavior. Given the complexity and missing output schema, the description is clearly insufficient.

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 50% – the 'situation' parameter is richly documented in the schema, but 'schema_version' is not described. The tool description itself adds no meaning to either parameter; it merely repeats the phrase 'structured situation' which adds no information beyond the schema's already detailed description. Given the moderate coverage, the description should compensate but does not.

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 specific verb, 'evaluate', and a specific resource, 'structured situation against the published ACI corpus'. This distinguishes it from the sibling tools, which all deal with listings, offerings, or domain verification. However, 'evaluate' is somewhat ambiguous (match? score? classify?), so it stops short of fully specifying the operation's semantics.

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 no explicit indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any preconditions, exclusions, or related tools (e.g., 'use discover_offerings if you need to search offerings'). The intended context is only weakly implied by the verb and resource, but an agent gets no direct guidance.

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