aiethos_preview_ethostron_fix

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully signals that the output is a *sample* / preview artifact rather than a live page edit, and it enumerates what is produced (inverted-pyramid copy, Schema.org markup, evidence structure). It does not state whether the target URL is crawled, whether anything is persisted, or whether there are cost/rate constraints — real gaps for a generation tool.

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 output contents are front-loaded in a single dense sentence, which is efficient, but 'The Taste Test' and 'EthosTron Live engine' are brand filler that consume the highest-attention position without telling the agent anything operational.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the description correctly spends its words enumerating the three returned artifacts, which is the right call. However, for a generation tool with zero annotations it omits the operational facts an agent needs before invoking: side effects, whether the URL is fetched, and how this fits after a citation check.

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 100%, including enum values and per-field explanations, so the description is not required to define parameters. It says nothing about url, gap_topic, or intent_category, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Synthesizes a sample authoritative Direct-Answer Content Block' using a named engine. That distinguishes it from the sibling check_llm_citations (diagnostic) and geo_quickscan (audit). The 'Taste Test' branding is decorative rather than informative, but the substantive clause carries the purpose.

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 statement of when to use this versus aiethos_check_llm_citations or aiethos_geo_quickscan, and no prerequisites such as whether the URL must already be scanned or whether an existing gap must be confirmed. The word 'preview' hints at a dry-run step but the description never says so explicitly.

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