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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of disclosure. It states 'heuristic scoring' and mentions the output (score 0–1 and risk level), but it does not explain what 'risk level' entails, how scoring works, or any limitations of the heuristic approach. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity for an agent.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the action and output. No redundant or irrelevant information is included, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter and no output schema), the description provides a basic overview of functionality and output. However, it lacks details on interpreting the risk level, any edge cases (e.g., empty input), or how the heuristic scoring behaves. This is adequate for a simple tool but not fully complete.

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 has one parameter 'text' with zero description coverage, and the tool description does not elaborate on the input. It only implies the text should contain hedge phrases, but it does not specify expected format, length, or sample examples. The description adds minimal value beyond the raw schema.

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 uses a specific verb 'scoring' and identifies a clear resource ('LLM hedge phrases') with a defined purpose (correlate with hallucinated outputs). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like check_safety and detect_pii, which target different risks. The output specification (score 0–1 and risk level) further clarifies its function.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or comparisons with sibling tools such as full_check or redact_pii. The only implicit usage is that it is for hallucination scoring, but no explicit context is given.

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