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

Annotations declare destructiveHint: true, but the description says 'Returns a draft for human review,' implying a non-destructive generation task. This is a direct contradiction. The description also fails to disclose any destructive or side-effecting behavior, such as state changes or irreversible actions. Given the annotation contradiction, this dimension scores 1.

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 three sentences: purpose, constraint, and return/payment. It is front-loaded with the core function and avoids redundancy. Every sentence adds information—purpose, data source restriction, output type, price, and payment requirement. It is concise and well-structured, earning a 5.

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 has 5 parameters, a nested input object, no output schema, and annotations that are contradictory, the description is far from complete. It does not explain the output structure beyond 'draft for human review,' nor does it clarify the payment workflow (how to provide wallet authorization), the purpose of idempotency_key, or the meaning of result_expires and signatures. An agent would have insufficient information to invoke this tool correctly and safely. This warrants a score of 1.

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%, and the description does not explain any parameters beyond mentioning 'brief' and 'supplied project brief.' It omits source_text, result_expires, idempotency_key, result_signature, and payment_signature. Since the tool requires a nested input object with brief and source_text, and includes payment-related fields, the description provides almost no guidance on how to fill these parameters. This is a significant gap.

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 function: 'Identify risks grounded in the supplied project brief, with likelihood rationale, impact, mitigations, and owners.' This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like swot_from_brief or action_items. The phrase 'supplied project brief' ties it to the input.brief parameter, making the core purpose 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?

The description provides context: it uses 'buyer-supplied information only; no external research or outbound actions,' implying it is for cases where only the brief is available. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions. There is no reference to sibling tools, so an agent must infer when this is the right choice. This is adequate but not explicit.

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