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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers: it is deprecated, requires an API key (Authorization: Bearer), costs 1 credit per call with credit pricing, and returns shortlist data that is 'not a quality verdict.' It also specifies handling of return content (present summary_for_user unchanged, keep must_mention, offer next_move), which is rich behavioral context.

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 front-loaded 'Legacy v1; use decide. Deprecated:' immediately routes the agent, and each subsequent sentence adds operational value (cost, auth, output handling, endpoint). It is dense and somewhat run-on, but little 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 deprecated tool with no output schema and nested objects, the description covers behavior well: deprecation, auth, cost, endpoint, and return-field handling. The main gap is the semantic meaning of the constraints and environment parameters, which is left unaddressed.

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 only 25% (only use_case is documented in the schema), so the description should compensate but largely does not. It alludes to a 'use-case profile' but gives no meaning for limit, the constraints object (open_weights, include_rehosts, price_sensitivity, max_cost_per_million_input_tokens), or the environment object, leaving half the nested parameters undocumented.

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 states a specific verb and resource: ranking models for 'one fixed use-case profile' and returning a shortlist. It also explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling 'decide' ('use decide', 'Legacy v1'), so an agent can distinguish it from alternatives without opening the schema.

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?

It gives explicit when-not-to-use guidance: 'Don't call it as a fallback when decide names no single leader: report decide's tie,' and directs the agent to 'use decide' generally. The condition selecting this tool (a fixed use-case ranking) versus the alternative is spelled out.

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