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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, but the description goes further by disclosing that the server never requests the user's draft and instructs the AI to keep content local. It also clarifies the tool returns the structured rubric and not computed scores, adding context beyond the annotations.

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, each with a distinct purpose: state what the tool does, contrast with the scoring sibling, and disclose privacy behavior. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no redundant or filler content.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description fully explains what is returned (structured rubric with groups, items, scoring bands), what is not computed (score), and how to get scoring if needed. It also covers the privacy behavior, making it adequate without an output schema.

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 input schema covers 100% of the single parameter (sheet) with a clear description of each enum value, so the schema itself does the heavy lifting. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a clear, specific verb (Get), identifies the resource (Lenny Zeltser's cybersecurity-writing rating sheet), and explains its purpose (apply the rubric). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool rating_score_writing by stating it does NOT compute a score, making its scope unmistakable.

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 explicit guidance: use this tool when you need the rubric without scoring, and directs users to rating_score_writing when they also want a numeric score, gap analysis, or rubric-anchored feedback. This directly addresses when to use this tool versus the most relevant sibling.

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