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

Adds real disclosure beyond annotations: no new per-visit credit sale, calculations require processing consent and store no inputs, and retrieved content is reference not runtime instructions (an injection-safety note). Annotations only flag readOnlyHint=false/idempotent=true, so this privacy-and-side-effect detail is meaningful extra 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?

Four short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the access prerequisite and the consent/no-storage caveat come quickly. Structure is efficient even if the sentences read as a stitched-together policy list rather than a coherent brief.

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 7-parameter tool with a nested object, one enum, no output schema and 14% schema coverage, the description is far too thin — it should at minimum explain the three actions and the meaning of consent/credit flags. It covers the access and privacy ethos but not enough for correct invocation.

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 only 14% and seven parameters exist, yet the description explains almost nothing: only processing_consent is implied ('Calculations require processing consent'). action's read/unlock/compare values, voluntary, spend_paid_credit, request_key and the nested data object are all left undocumented in both prose and schema.

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?

It names the verb set (read, calculate) and the resource ('Choice Compass'), so an agent can tell it touches a decision/product artifact. But 'Choice Compass' is proprietary vocabulary not grounded anywhere in the definition, and the enum actions read/unlock/compare are never mapped to behavior, so the actual purpose remains partly opaque.

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 implies the prerequisite condition for use ('active Practice or earlier purchased access') and states that calculations need consent, which is genuine usage context. However, it never says when to pick this over the many siblings (e.g. eclypse_reflect, eclypse_dwell, eclypse_catalog) or what distinguishes read vs unlock vs compare.

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