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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well: it discloses that the result is 'real, fully-scored', lists the return values (score, verdict, metrics, transcript, public URL), states 'Zero carrier cost', and gives a time estimate ('about a minute'). It could mention potential side effects or limitations, but for a demo tool the described behavior is quite transparent.

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 earning its place: the first states the core action and scope, the second lists the outputs, the third addresses cost and input flexibility. It is front-loaded with the most important information and contains zero waste.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description enumerates the expected return values (score, verdict, metrics, transcript, URL), which is critical for the agent to know what to expect. It also covers timing, cost, and input override semantics. The schema handles parameter details, and together they give a complete picture for invoking the tool correctly.

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 schema already covers all 5 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context by stating 'Optional inputs override the scenario', clarifying that these parameters are optional modifications to a default scenario rather than required inputs. This goes beyond the schema and helps the agent understand parameter semantics.

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: 'Run the hosted demo voice agent (a dental front desk) end-to-end' and get a scored result. It distinguishes this from sibling tools (e.g., run_test, test_flow) by emphasizing 'no target of your own needed', clarifying it is for a pre-hosted demo rather than user-provided flows.

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: use this when you don't have your own target, as it explicitly says 'no target of your own needed'. It also notes 'Optional inputs override the scenario', implying the default scenario runs without any overrides. It does not name alternative tools directly, but the context is strong enough to guide selection.

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