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

The description claims 'Idempotent — a re-call only re-grades anything not already graded,' which directly contradicts the annotation idempotentHint=false. This is a clear contradiction between the description and structured metadata, making the behavioral transparency unreliable.

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 concise and well-structured: first sentence gives primary purpose, second explains ownership/restriction, third describes return, fourth covers idempotency. No unnecessary words; each sentence adds value.

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 description covers the main aspects: what is graded, target scope, return format, and idempotency. However, it does not explicitly mention side effects (e.g., that grading writes outcomes), and the idempotency contradiction reduces overall reliability. Given the complexity of a bulk operation, the description is adequate but has gaps.

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 provides comprehensive descriptions for all three parameters (max, as_of, customer_id) with 100% coverage. The description reinforces the customer_id restriction but does not add semantic meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Find every thesis past its horizon with no outcome yet, and grade each via score_thesis_outcome.' This uses a specific verb ('find' and 'grade') and resource ('theses'), and distinguishes it from the single-thesis sibling score_thesis_outcome by describing bulk operation.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool: 'Operates on the caller's OWN theses — omit customer_id.' It also explains the restriction on targeting other users, which clarifies a key usage boundary. However, it does not explicitly contrast with the alternative sibling score_thesis_outcome for single-thesis grading, though it references it.

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