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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context by stating the score range and that every score includes its sample size, but it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or describe any limitations, side effects, or data aggregation details. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core meaning (process consistency dimensions, scoring), then adds the use case and the sample-size guarantee. Every sentence 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 read-only tool with two optional, well-documented date parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key semantics: what is measured, the score scale, the sample-size inclusion, and the intended question. It does not elaborate on how sample size is used or how scores may be interpreted, but the essentials are present.

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 coverage is 100%, so the parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage, but it earns the baseline 3 rather than more.

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 defines the tool's output: discipline metrics covering risk control, patience, consistency, and mental stability, each scored 0-100. It also explicitly states the use case ('was I disciplined' questions), which distinguishes it from sibling analytics 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 gives an explicit when-to-use signal: this is the tool for 'was I disciplined' questions. It does not name alternatives or state exclusions, so it falls short of full guidance, but the intended context is clear.

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