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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses deterministic scoring (no LLM calls), the exact structure of the report, and the character limit. This provides clear behavioral expectations without contradictions.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence adds value: what it does, what it returns, and when to use an alternative. No unnecessary words.

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 tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), and the description fully covers its purpose, output, constraints, and usage context, including an alternative. The absence of an output schema is compensated by explicitly listing the report components.

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 schema has 100% coverage for the single 'text' parameter, describing its type, maximum length, and preprocessing advice. The description only repeats the max length and adds context about the analysis purpose. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameter comprehensively.

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 analyzes text against the Arco Lexicon using deterministic scoring, with a specific output format and a distinguishing note about suggest_terms. It uses a specific verb and resource, and differentiates from its 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 explicitly says 'Use this to score and audit text for correct Arco terminology' and provides a direct alternative: 'Use suggest_terms instead when you want to discover which terms apply.' This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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