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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds valuable behavioral details: pricing (B2, $0.05 per call, included in certain plans), the return structure (points gap and unmet gates separately, plus verdict), and a nuance about when the answer differs from points arithmetic. It does not describe error handling or rate limits, but the read-only annotation and pricing info suffice. 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 dense but well-structured, leading with the core purpose ('INFLUENCE — what blocks the next agent-readiness band') and then explaining key examples, return structure, and pricing. It is longer than necessary but every sentence provides substantive detail. The information is logically ordered, though it could be trimmed slightly for conciseness.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned: points gap, unmet gate requirements, and a verdict. It also covers pricing and a critical nuance about gate-vs-gap closure. However, it does not explain the meaning of the 'slug' parameter, which is required and undocumented in the schema. This is a notable omission for a tool that expects a specific identifier. Overall, it is fairly complete but leaves a parameter semantics gap.

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 has two parameters: slug (required, no description) and context (optional, with description). Schema description coverage is 50%, so the description should compensate for the undocumented slug, but it does not explain what slug refers to or how it relates to the gates. The description focuses on outputs and pricing, not parameter meanings. Therefore, it adds little semantic value beyond the schema, leaving a gap for a required parameter.

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 the tool's function: it identifies gates that block progress to the next agent-readiness band, returning gap and gate requirements. It distinguishes itself from point-based arithmetic by emphasizing 'GATES BEFORE POINTS' and the specific case where clearing a gate also closes the gap. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools like get_agent_readiness or find_agent_readiness, so differentiation is implied rather than direct.

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 provides clear context on when to use this tool: when you need to know what blocks progress beyond raw points, and when points arithmetic would give a wrong answer. It implies this is for gate analysis, but it does not explicitly state when not to use alternatives or name specific sibling tools. Thus it has clear context without explicit exclusions.

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