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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the error contract: invalid, missing, or malformed input never raises a protocol error but returns a structured {"error": ...} object, plus a safe-to-retry guarantee. Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent, but the error-handling and retry semantics are new information an agent needs for recovery logic.

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 purpose and routing sentences are front-loaded and tight, but the multi-line JSON return example consumes a large share of the description while an output schema already exists, making it largely redundant. The 'FREE' and retry sentences earn their place; the return-field blob does not.

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 single-parameter, read-only analysis tool with full schema coverage, an output schema, and annotations, the description covers what remains: scope, exclusions, alternatives, input example, and failure/retry behavior. An agent has everything needed to invoke and recover correctly.

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%, so the single 'text' parameter is already fully documented in the schema. The description adds only an example call shape ({"text": "<your draft>"}) and an implicit constraint that input should be body prose. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 and resource ('Analyze a draft') and enumerates the concrete dimensions checked (readability, passive voice, cliches, hedging, sentence variety, keyword density). It also names the sibling tools it is not (headline_analyzer, social_length_check), so an agent can route without opening schemas.

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?

Gives explicit positive scope ('Use on body prose to find readability and style problems') and explicit exclusions with the alternative tool named for each: not for ranking titles (headline_analyzer), not for platform limits (social_length_check). Nothing is left to inference.

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