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

With no annotations provided, the description fully bears the transparency burden. It discloses deterministic behavior, the lack of conversion lift prediction, cost per call, and details on what the tool checks (including regulatory exposure). No contradictions are present, and all behavioral traits are clearly stated.

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 concise yet comprehensive, with no wasted sentences. It front-loads the core purpose, then efficiently lists checks, caveats, and costs. Each sentence adds value, making it well-structured and appropriately sized.

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 tool's complexity (3 parameters, scoring with citations) and lack of output schema, the description is complete. It explains what the tool returns (scores with replication status, urgency flags) and its limitations, leaving no critical gaps for an agent to understand its capabilities.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds significant meaning beyond the schema by explaining how each parameter is used (e.g., 'surrounding_text' for detecting unsupported urgency, 'context' for additional info). It details the logic behind the checks, which greatly aids the agent in providing relevant inputs.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: scoring call-to-action text against a behavioral-science corpus. It lists specific checks (verb framing, friction words, etc.), making the verb and resource clear. While not explicitly distinguishing from siblings, its focus on CTA scoring is unique among the listed psych 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 provides clear context on when to use the tool (for scoring CTAs) and explicitly states what it does not do ('Does not predict a conversion lift'), serving as a when-not. However, it does not name alternative tools or provide explicit exclusions, so it stops 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.