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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it largely fails: it never says whether the tool generates content, returns a template, or performs analysis, nor what the output looks like. The one substantive claim — that the pack 'includes the complete prompt, usage guide, and edge-case handling' — hints at the payload but is marketing framing rather than operational disclosure.

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 sentences are spent on sales copy ('Turn expertise into output', 'professional results in minutes') with zero load-bearing detail, and the only quasi-technical information about the prompt pack is buried at the end. It is not bloated in length but nearly every sentence is wasted.

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 tool sitting in a dense family of '*-board-tool' siblings across many metrics, the definition supplies nothing an agent needs to route correctly — no output description, no distinction from analyze/diag/formula/tpl variants, and no behavioral notes despite the absence of annotations and an output schema.

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 description coverage is 100% with a single optional 'query' parameter already documented as scoping the analysis, so the schema does the work. The description adds no format, length, or scoping guidance beyond it, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 calls itself a 'cvr board tool prompt pack' but never states what operation it performs or what a 'board' produces. It is essentially promotional restatement of the name plus a target audience ('restaurant and brand teams'), giving no way to distinguish it from the adjacent cvr-analyze-tool, cvr-diag-tool, cvr-formula-tool, and cvr-tpl-tool.

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 when-to-use guidance at all — no conditions, no exclusions, and no mention of the five sibling tools sharing the 'cvr' prefix. The only audience statement ('restaurant and brand teams') does not tell an agent when to select this tool over an alternative.

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