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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the conditional behavior ('if it is visible') and the session auto-start behavior, but does not explain what happens if no keyboard is visible (e.g., no-op), potential side effects, or return value. This is adequate but not rich.

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 with no wasted words. The action is front-loaded, followed by the condition and then the session requirement. Every word earns its place.

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 simple tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the action, condition, and prerequisite. It lacks explicit mention of behavior when the keyboard is not visible or possible side effects, but the definition is largely complete for an agent to invoke it 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single parameter 'udid' as 'iOS device UDID'. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: 'Dismiss the software keyboard on an iOS device.' It clearly identifies the tool's unique function among many iOS sibling tools, and the conditional 'if it is visible' adds precision about its scope.

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?

It provides clear context on when to use the tool (when the keyboard is visible) and notes the prerequisite of an active iOS automation session with auto-start behavior. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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