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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, but the description adds valuable context: it clarifies that the server never requests the draft and instructs the AI to keep it local, explaining data flow. It also states what it returns (rubric + instructions). No contradiction with 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 appropriately sized, with the primary purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. Each subsequent sentence earns its place: differentiation, return content, and privacy. Despite the all-caps emphasis, it is concise and well-structured.

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 description covers purpose, return content, and data flow, which is sufficient for a read-only tool with rich schema information. However, it does not elaborate on the output structure (e.g., format of numeric scores) or how modes differ, though these are partially explained in the schema. Minor gap given no 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and every parameter has detailed descriptions including enums. The tool description itself does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the heavy lifting.

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 specifies a clear verb+resource: 'Get Lenny Zeltser's scoring playbook' for scoring drafts against a cybersecurity-writing rating sheet. It explicitly distinguishes itself from writing-coach tools by claiming it's the only one producing numeric scores, making its unique purpose 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?

It provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: when numeric scoring is needed. It names alternatives that do not score (`get_security_writing_guidelines`, `ir_*`, `product_*`), effectively telling the agent that these are not suitable for scoring. This goes beyond implied usage.

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