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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: 'Runs entirely locally; makes no network calls' is a privacy-relevant guarantee. It also qualifies the prefill as 'best-effort,' which manages agent expectations about reliability without contradicting any annotation.

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 dense but every clause earns its place: core action, full output contract, downstream usage, and a key execution guarantee. The main action is front-loaded, and the local-execution caveat is placed at the end without burying the primary purpose.

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?

Given the rich input schema, output schema, and annotations, the description covers everything an agent needs to choose and invoke the tool correctly. It explains what the tool scores, what it returns, how it relates to smi_create_deep_report, and the critical local-execution property. No essential context is missing.

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 input schema already provides 100% parameter coverage, including descriptions for notes, weights, and thresholds. The description adds context by naming the 5 signals and connecting the output to smi_create_deep_report, but it does not add parameter-level semantics beyond schema. Baseline 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 opens with a specific action ('Scores free-text case notes') and a precise resource, then spells out the full set of outputs: a RECOMMEND/REVIEW/NO ACTION verdict, confidence rating, detected signals, suggested product, and orderData prefill. It also names its downstream sibling (smi_create_deep_report), making it clearly distinct from the many other smi_ tools.

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 description clearly implies this tool is a pre-analysis step that feeds smi_create_deep_report, and 'runs entirely locally' signals a safe, offline analysis stage. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or provide exclusions, so it stops one step short of full guidance.

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