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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral traits. It only states 'run the helper' and mentions output, but does not disclose side effects, idempotency, state changes, or required permissions. The agent lacks information about what happens during execution.

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, concise and front-loaded with purpose. However, it is too brief to provide adequate context, balancing conciseness with a lack of detail that would make it more helpful.

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 tool's complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain how parameters interact, what the risk summary entails, or how to interpret the chosen action. Agents are left with insufficient information to invoke the tool correctly in context.

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?

Only 1 of 6 parameters (inputs) has a description in the schema, and the tool description adds no additional meaning for the remaining 5 parameters. Schema coverage is 17%, so the description fails to compensate, leaving agents without guidance on 'engine', 'objective', 'scenarios', 'risk_tolerance', or 'label'.

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 clearly states the tool runs a 'product decision helper' and returns 'chosen action plus risk summary', providing a specific verb and expected output. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'execute_decision' or 'plan_decision', slightly reducing clarity.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., plan_decision, execute_decision), no prerequisites or context provided. The description is purely functional, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage.

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