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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is disclosed. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by stating the tool 'returns a stronger version,' revealing that the output is an improved/reformulated text rather than just an evaluation. It also lists the six parts, giving the agent a clear sense of what the tool inspects. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the main action and then enumerates the six parts. It is clear and efficient, though the parenthetical list is a bit dense. No unnecessary fluff, and the key behavior is stated upfront.

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 tool has no output schema, so the description must explain the return value. It says 'returns a stronger version,' but this is vague—does it return just the rewritten text, or also a score? For a simple one-parameter tool with read-only annotations, the description covers input and high-level behavior, but lacks specifics about the output format. An agent might need more detail to use the result 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the parameter 'text' already has a clear description. The tool description essentially repeats the schema's parameter description ('what a dealership salesperson said when offering an appointment') and adds the six-part detail, which helps the agent understand what content is relevant. This is marginal added value, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Checks' and the resource: what a dealership salesperson said when offering an appointment. It also specifies the six parts of a visit, which clarifies scope. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool review_appointment_ask, which likely performs a similar check, so it misses the top score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention review_appointment_ask or any other sibling, nor does it give conditions for choosing this over rewrite_follow_up_text or similar tools. An agent must infer usage from the name and description alone, which is insufficient given the large sibling list.

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