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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden; it does disclose two meaningful traits — the 50-answer batch cap and that each call 'spends a little credit' (a cost signal). It does not say whether the call is read-only/idempotent, how much credit, or what happens when judge_id is untrained or invalid.

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?

A single tight sentence with the action, the mechanism, the output scale, and the cost front-loaded in that order. No redundant restatement of the tool name and nothing that could be cut.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is returned (a 0–1 score per answer), the batch limit, and the credit cost. Minor gaps remain around output alignment with input order and failure behavior.

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 0%, so the description must compensate; it partially does by implying judge_id refers to a trained judge and that answers is a capped list of up to 50 items. It adds no detail on judge_id format, item sizing, or whether answers are scored in order.

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 (score answers) plus the mechanism (a trained judge) and the output scale (0 to 1), which clearly separates it from train_judge, list_judges, and test_prompt. It lacks an explicit sibling callout, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

'With a trained judge' implies a prerequisite (obtain judge_id via train_judge/list_judges) and 'up to 50 answers' implies a batch constraint, but neither is stated as a when-to-use rule. There is no guidance on when to prefer this over test_prompt or when not to call it.

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