Fail

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the one critical trait — that the tool raises rather than returns — which is valuable, but it says nothing about the nature of the error, whether it is recoverable, or how the required 'text' argument influences the failure.

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?

One short sentence with no padding, and the key fact (it raises) lands early. Efficient, though it is efficient at saying too little.

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 details are covered elsewhere, but the required parameter is completely unexplained and the failure semantics are underspecified for a tool whose entire purpose is producing an error.

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% and the description never mentions the single required parameter 'text'. An agent has no idea whether the text is a message payload, an identifier, or just filler required to trigger the failure.

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?

It states a specific action ('raises') and the intended observer ('run_tool_call'), which is more than a restatement of the name. But 'completion tool' is ambiguous, and it never distinguishes itself from the near-identical sibling 'boom', which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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 clause 'so run_tool_call can observe a remote error' implies the use case: exercising error propagation. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and crucially does not tell the agent to prefer or avoid 'boom' for the same purpose.

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