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

With no annotations, the description partially conveys behavior by stating it returns a plan (implying no side effects). However, it lacks details on auth requirements, rate limits, or potential state changes, leaving gaps.

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 with no redundant words. It is front-loaded, stating the primary action and outputs immediately, followed by usage timing.

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 no output schema, the description outlines the plan's contents (spiders, patterns, principles), providing reasonable completeness. However, it could specify the structure (e.g., array or object) for full clarity.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The tool description does not add significant extra meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining how 'thorough' affects the plan. 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 clearly states the tool returns a spider web verification plan, listing included components (spiders, patterns, principles) and when to call it (at round start). This distinguishes it from siblings like spider_checklist or spider_classify_tier.

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 says 'call at the start of a round', providing clear context. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives, which would improve the score.

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