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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does well: it discloses the return shape (overall score, rating, blocked flag, per-category findings), the 32 MB call limit, the ~24 MB practical document limit, and the non-obvious failure mode (a bare HTTP 413 from the transport rather than a normal tool error). It omits auth/permission requirements, which is the main remaining gap.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then return values, then input mechanics and limits. Sentences are dense but each earns its place; the size-limit sentence is long and slightly tangled but conveys a genuinely useful constraint.

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 no-annotation, no-output-schema tool with 9 parameters, the description covers returns and limits well but leaves most parameters undocumented and says nothing about permissions or how engine/industry/document_type affect scoring. Adequate at the top level, incomplete at the parameter level.

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 0% across 9 parameters. The description documents only two inputs well (content_base64 with accepted file types, and text), leaving engine, filename, industry, deal_room_id, document_type, and force_precision entirely unexplained in both schema and description. Six of nine parameters are opaque.

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 names a specific verb ('upload ... and score') and resource (a deal document), and states the risk-scoring scope (15 categories). It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling bulk_screen, but the singular 'a deal document' implicitly distinguishes it from a bulk operation.

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?

It gives clear when-to-use guidance for input format ('content_base64' vs 'text') and names an explicit alternative for oversized documents (the REST upload endpoint). It does not contrast itself with sibling tools like bulk_screen, so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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