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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says 'Returns' which implies a read operation, but it does not explicitly state that it is read-only, does not describe permissions, error handling, or side effects. The tool could be a safe getter, but the description gives no behavioral guarantees.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the purpose and output without redundancy. Every word contributes value, making it highly concise for an AI agent to parse.

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?

The tool is simple (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), and the description covers the key elements: what it returns (review count, average rating, summary) and its applicability. It could mention the exact return format or error behavior, but for a getter of this simplicity, the provided context is sufficient for an agent to invoke it.

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 describes the only parameter (client_slug) with 100% coverage. The description adds a small amount of context by referencing 'Lead Stampede client' and 'all client types', which reinforces the parameter's domain, but it does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema. Baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') and clearly identifies the resource ('social proof for a Lead Stampede client') with concrete output details ('review count, average rating, and a brief summary'). It also adds a scope qualifier ('Works for all client types') that distinguishes it from other client-related tools like get_client.

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 implies usage by naming the output (reviews/ratings), and the 'works for all client types' provides a scoping hint. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_client, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. Guidance is implied rather than direct.

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