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

Annotations already convey readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds a high-level function but no extra behavioral details such as input assumptions, output format, or edge cases. Thus it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 a single, clear sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose effectively. This is ideal conciseness.

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?

Despite rich annotations and complete schema parameter descriptions, the description does not explain the tool's output structure or provide any usage context for this complex analytical tool. With no output schema, the agent is left without sufficient information to predict the result. The single-sentence description is insufficient for a tool with 6 parameters.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters with meaningful explanations, so the description does not need to elaborate. The description itself adds no parameter-specific information, but baseline is appropriate given the complete schema coverage.

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 uses specific verbs 'Score' and 'extract' with objects 'candidate actions' and 'robust action zones', clearly indicating a scoring/analysis tool. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like waveguard_scan or waveguard_cascade_risk, so it merits a 4 rather than a 5.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description lacks any contextual cues such as prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions. It simply states the function without telling the agent when to select it.

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