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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals meaningful behavior: the tool consumes pending signals (a potentially irreversible action), re-scans edges, and updates confidence. This goes beyond a simple 'trigger evaluation' and provides insight into side effects. It does not mention cost, rate limits, or error scenarios, but the core behavioral traits are disclosed.

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 two sentences and front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every word earns its place: the first sentence explains what the tool does in three concrete actions, and the second sentence gives the key usage context. No redundancy or fluff.

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 two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, mechanism, and usage timing. It does not describe the return value or any potential blocking behavior, but these are not strictly required for this tool's complexity. The description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 both parameters (thesisId, apiKey) already documented. The tool description does not add extra semantic detail for either parameter beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is 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 opens with a specific verb phrase 'Force immediate evaluation' and clearly defines the resource (evaluation of a thesis) and the concrete operations performed (consume pending signals, re-scan edges, update confidence). This strongly distinguishes it from read-only get_* siblings and the injection tool inject_signal.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use after injecting important signals.' This gives clear context for invocation. However, it does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools for similar scenarios, so it falls short of the full explicit guidance level.

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