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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description only adds the return format. However, it inaccurately states 'Provide a decision scenario and options,' implying an 'options' input field that does not exist in the schema. This misrepresents the tool's actual behavior, which is a transparency failure.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the core purpose, and includes just the essential usage hint. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description's enumeration of returned fields is valuable and partially compensates. However, it doesn't clarify which schema parameters are required vs optional or address the 'options' discrepancy, leaving an incomplete picture for an agent deciding how to invoke the tool.

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 80%, so the baseline would be 3, but the description's erroneous mention of 'options' actively misleads the agent about accepted inputs. It adds no clarifying detail for the actual parameters (goal, question, context, style, want_confidence) and could cause the agent to try passing a non-existent parameter.

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's function: providing structured decision intelligence with confidence scoring, and lists the returned JSON fields (recommended decision, confidence percentage, reasoning, risk level). It distinguishes itself from open-ended analysis, but the mention of 'options' as an input is not reflected in the schema, slightly muddying purpose.

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 explicitly says 'Use when you need a structured, actionable output rather than open-ended analysis,' giving clear when-to-use guidance. It doesn't name specific alternatives like 'reason' or 'prove' but implies a differentiation from other analysis tools, so it lacks explicit exclusions but is not misleading.

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