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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden, but it discloses nothing about side effects, read-only status, permissions, or output format. It offers only a topic phrase, not a behavioral profile.

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 short sentence with no wasted words, but its structure is a colon-led list that is not front-loaded with an action. It is concise yet lacks clear front-loading of purpose.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the lack of parameters simplifies things. However, the description still fails to clarify the tool's action or usage, which is inadequate even for a simple zero-parameter tool with an ambiguous name like 'language'.

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 there are no parameter semantics to describe. The baseline for 0 params is 4, as the schema itself is empty and requires no further explanation.

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 names the domain (ZFL language, columns, fields, meaning, rules) but does not state what the tool actually does—no verb such as 'returns' or 'describes'. It is a vague purpose statement that leaves the agent guessing the action, and it does not distinguish itself from siblings 'examples' or 'judge'.

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 indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'examples' or 'judge'. No prerequisites, context, or exclusions are provided, leaving the agent without guidance on selection.

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