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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: the tool produces a summary containing the five pillars and weights and provides a link to the full methodology, with no contradictions.

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?

A single sentence that communicates the action, the subject, the specific components covered, and the linking behavior. No filler or redundancy.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema, the description completely explains what the agent can expect: a summary of the five pillars and weights, plus a link to full methodology. No invocation-relevant information is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the empty schema fully documents the invocation surface. Description correctly adds nothing about parameters since none exist; this matches the baseline for parameterless tools.

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 states a specific action ('Summarize') and a clear resource (how the Phi Score works), with concrete content: five clinical pillars and weights. It clearly distinguishes itself as the summary-oriented counterpart to full_prism_report.

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 phrasing implies this tool is for getting a concise overview of the Phi Score methodology and a link to details, but it never explicitly states when to choose this over full_prism_report or any other sibling. Usage context is implied rather than spelled out.

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