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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that no model is involved, that results are deterministic, that unknown ids or invalid values are rejected with an error listing them, that unanswered questions lower confidence rather than score, and the exact headline behavior for empty and sub-half-confidence results.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the core purpose and return shape come first, then answer formats, then validation and confidence behavior. Every sentence adds information, though the run-on answer-format sentence could be split for readability.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description properly names the returned fields (headline, module scores, flags, plan, evidence). For a computation tool with nested free-form answers, this is nearly complete; only the pack enum meaning is left unstated.

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 only 50%, and the description compensates strongly by specifying answer formats per question type (0-3 or "dk" for scale, option value for single-choice, array for multi-select) with a concrete example. The pack enum values are left unexplained, though they are largely self-descriptive.

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 verb and resource — runs the deterministic rules engine for one assessment pack and returns headline, module scores, flags and the plan. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling list_* tools by making clear it computes a result rather than enumerating resources.

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?

Usage context is implied (score one of the assessments, diagnostic to guide a conversation, not advice), but there is no explicit statement of when to call this versus list_assessments or how it relates to other siblings. The agent must infer the trigger condition.

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