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

With no annotations, the description must disclose side effects. 'Convert' implies transformation but does not state whether the input is modified, whether a new object is created, error handling, or reversibility. The description lacks behavioral detail that an agent needs.

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, front-loaded with the verb and object, with no redundant words. It is concise and efficiently communicates the core action, though it sacrifices detail.

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 lack of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, the description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior, expected input format, return value, or relationship to sibling tools. It covers only the headline action.

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 input schema has one parameter 'documentText' (string) with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description only mentions 'document' but does not elaborate on the expected format, content, or purpose of 'documentText,' so it adds no meaningful semantics beyond the 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?

Description states 'Convert document to agent-readable spec,' which clearly identifies the verb 'convert' and resource 'document' to 'spec.' It is specific but does not explicitly distinguish from sibling 'spec_validate,' though the action is obviously different.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus 'spec_validate' or any other alternative. The description gives no indication of prerequisites, use cases, or when conversion is appropriate.

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