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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not state whether the tool is a pure calculation, whether it makes external calls, what happens with missing optional inputs, or any side effects. The phrasing 'from pricing hits + review-site hits + intent mentions' is ambiguous—it could imply data fetching rather than using the provided count parameters.

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 a single compact sentence with no filler, front-loading outputs before inputs. It could be slightly better structured with explicit separation of inputs and outputs, but it remains efficient and scannable.

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 simple four-parameter calculator, the description is minimally viable: it lists the outputs. However, with no output schema, it omits the return structure, label thresholds, and behavior when optional parameters are absent. An agent would need to guess how the label is derived from the inputs.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameter roles. It gives a high-level mapping for three parameters (pricing hits, review-site hits, intent mentions) but completely omits hasNamedPricing and does not explain how any parameter influences the score, label, or percentage.

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 names a specific resource (budget_proof_score with 0-10 range), explicit outputs (label categories and purchase_intent_pct), and concrete input ingredients (pricing hits, review-site hits, intent mentions). This clearly distinguishes it from the many sibling compute_* tools, which address different signals.

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?

There is no guidance on when to invoke this tool, no context about the decision it supports, and no comparison to alternatives like compute_monetization or compute_urgency_composite. The intended use is only implied by the tool name and outputs.

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