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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: it discloses the return structure (points gap and unmet gate requirements priced separately, plus a verdict) and the cost model ($0.05/call, included in Understanding and Influence).

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 core claim (gates before points) is front-loaded, but the description is padded with promotional phrasing like 'the case a points-arithmetic answer gets wrong every time' and internal pricing jargon ('Priced B2', 'INFLUENCE') that consumes space without helping invocation.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining returns and does so adequately: the points gap, unmet gate requirements with individual pricing, and a gate-vs-gap verdict. Combined with annotation coverage of the safety profile, an agent has what it needs to call this correctly, though the sibling boundary remains ambiguous.

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%, so both parameters (slug and optional context) are already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about parameter format or meaning, so the baseline 3 applies — the schema does all the work.

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?

States a specific analytic function: identifying what blocks the next agent-readiness band, with gates taking precedence over points. It is distinguishable from read-only lookups like get_agent_readiness or agent_readiness_dimensions, though it never names a sibling, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to call this vs. alternatives such as agent_readiness_dimensions, gap_analysis, or what_can_i_fix. The 'INFLUENCE' framing and the gate logic imply a use case, but the agent is left to infer the triggering condition and there are no exclusions.

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