score_text

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it discloses meaningful traits: 'Deterministic, nothing is stored,' 'Credits: 0,' and that nss returns null with a reason when no analysis is referenced. It does not cover permissions or the shape of the score result, but the cost/statelessness disclosure is valuable.

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 primary purpose is front-loaded and the text is short, but it is broken into fragments (a mid-sentence metadata line, a trailing note about nss) that read as terse notes rather than a coherent statement, slightly hurting scannability.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Still, for a 5-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, leaving three parameters (content, project_id, persona_id) unexplained makes the definition incomplete for confident 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 description coverage is 0% over 5 params, so the description must compensate. It clarifies format (html|markdown, max 100000 chars) and hints at query_id's role for NSS, but content, project_id, and persona_id are entirely undocumented in both schema and description.

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 (Score) and resource (a text) plus the criteria (brand rules and AI-slop patterns), which distinguishes it from siblings like get_scorecard and seo_checklist. The 'NSS' acronym and 'query_id' extension are not defined, adding some ambiguity.

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 'with a ready query_id also the NSS' clause implies a usage scenario, suggesting the tool is used standalone or linked to a finished analysis. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative among the many siblings.

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