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

The description adds genuinely new context beyond the annotations: 'spends one solve' signals a cost/budget resource, and the refine→fetch→claims→verdict sequence discloses that this is a multi-step, non-trivial operation. It is consistent with readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, but it doesn't say what the verdict contains, how long it takes, or what happens if the solve budget is exhausted.

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 compact sentences that front-load the domain and then the steps. The phrase 'spends one solve' is terse to the point of being opaque, but there is no padding or repetition.

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 no output schema, the description is the only source of information about what comes back, and 'show named claims before the verdict' is a partial hint at best — no format, length, or structure is given. For a one-parameter tool with rich annotations this is adequate but not complete.

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?

One parameter with 0% schema description coverage and only min/max length constraints, so the description carries the full burden. It implies the input is a research question that gets refined, but gives no guidance on phrasing, scope, length, or what makes a good versus poor input.

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 domain (psychology) and a pipeline (refine, fetch studies, show named claims, verdict), so the agent can infer what it does. However, it overlaps heavily with siblings ecca_refine, ecca_research, and ecca_verify without saying what makes this psychology-specific check distinct from those generic tools.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of alternatives. The only implicit signal is the domain word 'Psychology'. Given ten sibling tools covering refine/research/verify/synthesize, the absence of routing guidance is a real gap.

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