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

The description discloses that the AI proposes a detector and saves it disabled, emphasizing that an LLM never arms detection unattended. Annotations indicate non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent, non-destructive; description adds behavioral nuance beyond annotations.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with core action, followed by key constraints. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy. Ideal conciseness for a low-parameter tool.

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?

With only one parameter, no output schema, and low complexity, the description fully covers purpose, behavior, constraints, and usage prerequisites. No additional information is needed for correct invocation.

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?

The single parameter 'description' has a schema description but the tool description adds value with examples ('e.g. flag AWS secret access keys') and context 'plain English'. Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but extra context raises score.

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 clearly states the tool creates a custom content detector from a plain English description, with specific verb 'author a detector' and resource 'detector'. It distinguishes from siblings as no other tool creates detectors; siblings involve agents, policies, incidents, etc.

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 specifies scope (`policies:write`) and plan requirement (Team+), and limits use to 'outbound content categories only'. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but context is clear. Sibling tools are distinct, so no confusion.

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