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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it discloses almost nothing. "Includes the complete prompt, usage guide, and edge-case handling" is the sole behavioral hint — it suggests the response is a prompt-pack artifact rather than an analysis — but there is no statement of side effects, cost, latency, or what the caller must supply.

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?

Three short sentences, but the first is pure filler and the second is marketing copy. Only the final sentence carries information, and it is buried rather than front-loaded. Size is fine; content density is not.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description must explain what the tool produces and how to call it well — it does neither. An agent cannot tell whether this returns a prompt, a report, a template, or a chat-style answer, nor what a good "query" looks like.

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?

There is a single optional parameter documented at 100% schema coverage, so the schema already explains that "query" scopes the analysis. The description adds nothing about the query — no examples of useful queries, no effect of omitting it. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the work.

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?

"Turn expertise into output" is a slogan, not a description of an action. The only concrete nouns are "consumer psychology assistant prompt pack" and the audience (restaurant and brand teams), but it never says what invoking the tool actually does or returns. It also fails to distinguish itself from close siblings like consumer-psych-pro, consumer-claim-coach, or conversion-psych-tactics.

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 mention of "restaurant and brand teams" implies an audience but gives no when-to-use condition, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. With dozens of adjacent psychology/persuasion siblings available, an agent has no basis for choosing this one over consumer-psych-pro.

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