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

The description discloses that the audience enum only affects copy and does not set an inferred relationship, and that the tool does not publish predictions or answer sheets. This adds useful transparency beyond the annotations (which are all false), but it leaves out other behavioral aspects such as idempotency, side effects on existing data, or whether the relay is persistent.

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 a single, compact sentence (plus a follow-up constraint) that conveys key caveats without unnecessary filler. It is well-structured and easy to parse, though the wording could be more straightforward.

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?

The tool is a mutation with no annotation hints and no guidance on its return value or how the relay relates to other actions like prediction submission or scoring. While the description mentions what it does *not* do, it fails to explain what the caller will receive (output schema exists but is not described) or how to follow up. The description leaves important workflow gaps.

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 description hints that `responseToken` relates to a 'response capability' and that `audience` is an enum affecting copy only. This provides some meaning that the bare schema lacks (no descriptions), but it does not fully explain what a 'responseToken' is, its format, or its purpose beyond being a credential-like string. Overall, it adds moderate value.

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 states the tool creates a 'bounded score-to-beat relay' and mentions an audience and response capability, giving a general sense of purpose. However, the wording is abstract and jargon-heavy ('exact private response capability', 'fixed framing audience'), leaving ambiguity about what exactly the relay does or how it fits into the overall workflow.

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?

It provides a single usage constraint ('Use only after explicit operator authorization') but does not clarify when to use this tool versus siblings like `submit_friendship_prediction` or `score_personality_responses`. There is no guidance on preconditions, workflow position, or alternative scenarios.

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