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

The description is highly transparent, explicitly stating it writes NOTHING, returns a draft proposal with evidence and confidence, and is grounded in the website. However, the annotations declare destructiveHint=true, which directly contradicts the description's 'writes NOTHING' claim. Per the contradiction rule, this dimension must score 1.

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 longer than average but well-organized: core behavior, routing, then sensitive-tier approval behavior. Each section earns its place, though some phrasing could be tightened without losing information.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers return shape, non-mutating behavior, grounding constraints, routing prerequisites, and approval handling. An agent has enough context to select and invoke it correctly, aside from the annotation conflict.

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 coverage is 100% for both parameters, so the schema already documents tenet and companyId. The description adds the website-grounded drafting concept but does not meaningfully extend parameter meaning beyond the enum and descriptions already present.

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 states a specific verb, resource, and source: draft a company tenet (mission or vision) from the company's existing website. It also clearly differentiates from a blank-field entry workflow, so an agent can understand the tool's unique role among siblings.

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?

Provides explicit routing: use only when a tenet is empty and resolvable_by_synthesis, and instructs the agent to check get_setup_state first. It also names the confirmation path via update_company and gives behavioral guidance about not re-asking in chat after the card is presented.

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