typesafe_rank

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by stating the tool returns scores, confidence, and a review recommendation, and by explicitly reinforcing that it never selects or changes a record. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the second sentence efficiently conveys output and a key limitation. Every clause earns its place.

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?

For a tool with six parameters, no output schema, and sibling tools, the description covers the essential invocation context: what to provide, what will be returned, and what the tool will not do. It omits optional parameters' behavior, but the annotations and schema fill some of that gap, so the definition is reasonably 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?

Schema description coverage is 50%, so the description needs to compensate for undocumented parameters. It adds meaning for 'candidates' (retrieved, up to 50) and 'criteria' (concrete rubric), but it does not clarify 'confidence_threshold', 'comparison_model', or 'instructions' beyond what the schema already states. The description helps but does not fully bridge the gap.

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 uses a specific verb ('Score and rank'), identifies the resource ('retrieved candidates'), and bounds the scope ('up to 50') against 'a concrete rubric'. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by stating it never selects or changes a record, which separates it from routing and mutation tools.

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 clear context: use this when you have retrieved candidates that need scoring and ranking against a rubric. It also provides an exclusion ('it never selects or changes a record'), but it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or conditions for when to use them instead.

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