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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It clearly lists the analytical outputs, but does not explicitly disclose behavioral traits such as side effects, safety, or external calls. However, 'analyze' implies a non-mutating, read-only operation, which partially covers transparency.

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 with no wasted words. It immediately identifies the action and resource, then lists concrete outputs, making it highly concise and scannable.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers inputs and expected outputs well. It lists the analysis dimensions, but does not specify the exact response format. Given the tool's simplicity, this is adequate and nearly 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and describes 'prompt' as 'Prompt to analyze'. The description adds context by specifying the analysis dimensions, but does not provide additional syntax, format, or constraint details beyond what the schema already states.

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 ('Analyze') and resource ('a prompt'), and enumerates the analysis dimensions (clarity score, filler patterns, ambiguity, improvement suggestions). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like compare_prompts or optimize_prompt.

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 implies its use for analyzing a single prompt, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide exclusions. Sibling tool names offer context, but the description itself lacks direct guidance.

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