Score an offer

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

Discloses a real side effect beyond the annotations: the score is written to an in-memory registry keyed by exact offer text, is lost on restart, and should be re-scored before finalizing a plan. It also explains that every dimension returns WITH its evidence (auditable, not a vibe), which the annotations do not convey.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and scoring model, then side effect, then exclusions and sibling routing. Dense but every sentence carries decision-relevant information; no filler.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains the return (per-dimension evidence + grade) and flagging of statefulness (cache lost on restart). Combined with the sibling map and explicit scope limits, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already carries both parameters. The description adds value by tying 'audience' to a specific weighted dimension (audience specificity, 24 points) and stressing 'the exact sentence a prospect would read', clarifying the precision the 'offer' string must have.

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 (one offer statement) plus the exact scoring model and grade bands, so the agent knows precisely what comes back. It also explicitly names what it is not (landing-page/copy critique) and distinguishes itself from plan_campaign and build_plan.

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?

Gives an explicit exclusion ('Do NOT use it as a general copy critique — it grades offer statements, not landing pages') and an explicit sibling routing map: plan_campaign plans strategy, this grades a sentence, build_plan consumes the scores. Nothing about when to reach for it is left to inference.

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