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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about what the tool returns, how the framework is applied, or what output shape to expect. The only signal is the vague analytical intent of surfacing trade-offs.

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?

It is a single short sentence with zero filler, so there is no waste. However, it is under-specified rather than well-structured: the sentence is a slogan and is not front-loaded with what the tool actually does.

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 one-parameter framework tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is far too thin to guide selection or invocation among many near-identical siblings. It omits the framework's method, inputs beyond the schema, and expected output.

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 'input' parameter has 100% schema description coverage, which already explains that it takes the problem or decision to analyze. The description adds no syntax, format, or content guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 statement 'Make the invisible trade-offs of a yes fully visible' is a value proposition, not a statement of what the tool does. It never names a verb+resource (analyze/evaluate a decision's opportunity cost) and offers no way to distinguish it from sibling frameworks like run_regret_minimization or run_inversion.

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?

There is no indication of when to choose this framework over the other nineteen run_* strategy tools. No trigger conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are given; an agent must guess based on the tool name alone.

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