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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: results are sorted by risk_score and higher scores mean lower risk.

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 sentences efficiently deliver the action, the constraint on input size, the comparison basis, and the output ordering/interpretation. No filler or redundancy.

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 read-only bulk ranker with rich annotations and only two parameters, the description is largely sufficient. The key missing details are risk_score range and how invalid ZIPs are handled, but the core contract is clear.

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?

The schema documents candidates and enumerates site_profile values, covering 50% of parameters. The description clarifies that the profile is single and applied across all candidates, but it does not explain profile semantics, risk_score range, or invalid-input behavior.

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 action ('Score and rank'), a bounded resource ('up to 100 ZIPs'), and a comparison basis ('a single site profile'). It clearly distinguishes itself from single-lookup tools like site_risk and batch location tools like geo_zip_batch.

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 intended use is clear: bulk-rank ZIPs against one site profile. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls just short of a full 5.

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