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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so an agent knows this is a safe, side-effect-free local computation. The description adds the sycophancy-penalty intent but nothing about output shape (single score vs per-pair matrix), computational cost, or how ties are handled, so it only marginally goes beyond the 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?

One compact sentence with the verb and object front-loaded and no padding or redundancy. It is efficient, though brevity here comes at the cost of the behavioral and usage detail noted elsewhere.

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 is simple (one array parameter, annotations covering safety), but it is a measurement tool with no output schema, so the description should say what is actually returned (a divergence score? a value per assertion pair?) and what range or units apply. That gap leaves the agent guessing about the result of the call.

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 100% and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only the framing that entries are 'candidate assertions', which the schema already says; no format, count, or ordering constraints are contributed.

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?

States a specific verb (measures) and two named dimensions (lexical and semantic divergence) over a clearly identified resource (candidate assertions), plus the downstream intent (penalize sycophancy). This clearly separates it from sibling tools like ecca_verify or ecca_synthesize, though it never explicitly differentiates itself from them.

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 phrase 'to penalize sycophancy' hints at the motivating scenario, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no stated prerequisites (e.g., minimum number of assertions), and no routing to or away from siblings like ecca_verify.

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