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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it discloses useful operational traits: it runs on a single cheap model, needs no API key, and returns up to six questions. It also notes the Portuguese trigger phrase. It does not state whether the draft is persisted or explicitly confirm read-only behavior, but the 'before spending anything' framing implies no side effects.

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 multi-sentence but front-loaded with purpose and outputs, then usage guidance and alternative. The Portuguese trigger phrase and cost details earn their place, though the text is denser than strictly necessary.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (score, suggested work type, questions), when to use it, cost/auth, and the better alternative. No critical information for invoking it correctly appears missing.

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 only parameter, text, is already fully described in the schema (coverage 100%), including min/max length and trimming behavior. The description therefore adds little beyond high-level output context; 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 opens with a specific action ('Check whether a draft is ready') and names concrete outputs: a 0-100 readiness reading, suggested work type, and up to six objective questions. It also explicitly contrasts with evaluate_text, which prevents confusion with a sibling tool.

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 states exactly when this tool is the right first call ('when a user asks if a paper... is good enough yet') and explicitly routes to evaluate_text when a citable score is needed. This gives an agent clear selection logic.

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