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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is forced and affects all listed composite scores, and hints at a use case. However, it does not mention side effects (e.g., overwriting existing scores), asynchronous behavior, permissions, or other potential impacts of a 'force' operation, leaving meaningful gaps.

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: the first states the action and scope, the second gives practical usage. Every word earns its place; no redundant information.

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 single-parameter operation with no output schema or annotations, the description covers what, why, and when. It does not explicitly describe the return value or postconditions, but this is a minor gap given the simplicity and the action-oriented nature of the tool.

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 schema description for targetId is 100% clear, so the description need only add context. The description references 'a target' but adds no new parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 a specific action ('Force recompute') applied to a resource ('all composite scores') and specifies which sub-scores (Security, SEO, Performance, Accessibility). It differentiates from sibling read-only tools like get_target_scores by emphasizing the recompute/refresh nature.

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?

Provides clear usage context ('after manual changes or when scores seem stale'), though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. This is sufficient for a straightforward recompute operation given sibling tools like get_target_scores exist for reading.

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