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 behavior, pure math, and no external calls, which are meaningful behavioral traits beyond the schema. It could add details about invalid inputs or exact return shape, but the core side-effect and reliability profile is clear.

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 tight sentences, front-loads the concrete outputs, and includes only high-value behavioral constraints. There is no filler or unnecessary repetition.

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 description names the outputs and score range, which is useful given there is no output schema. However, it does not explain the structure of badges/death reason, the role of analysisId, or when this aggregate computation should be used relative to the many sibling compute tools. It is adequate but not complete.

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?

enrichedData is partially documented in the schema and echoed by 'enriched idea' in the description. analysisId has no description in either the schema or the tool description, though its purpose as an identifier is inferable. With 50% schema coverage, the description adds some but not full parameter clarity.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it computes 12 collection scores, badges, and a death reason for an enriched idea. It also specifies the score range (0-100), which distinguishes this aggregate scoring tool from sibling tools that compute individual signals like compute_barrier or compute_funding_momentum.

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 gives context that it applies to an enriched idea and is pure math, but it does not say when to choose this tool over the many sibling compute_* tools. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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