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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'advanced reasoning' and strategy names but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's read-only or mutative, performance characteristics, rate limits, or what the output looks like. The description is too high-level to guide the agent on how the tool behaves in practice.

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 a single, efficient sentence that states the tool's general function and lists key strategies. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with no wasted words, though it could be more specific to improve clarity without losing conciseness.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the reasoning process, output format, or how strategies differ, leaving significant gaps for the agent to understand the tool's role and results. The schema covers parameters well, but overall context is lacking.

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%, so the schema fully documents all 7 parameters. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema—it doesn't explain how parameters interact (e.g., beamWidth applies to beam_search, numSimulations to mcts) or provide context for their use. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states the tool is for 'advanced reasoning' with 'multiple strategies including Beam Search and Monte Carlo Tree Search', which gives a general purpose but lacks specificity about what it actually does (e.g., generate reasoning steps, evaluate hypotheses, solve problems). It doesn't distinguish from siblings, but there are none, so this is less critical. The description is vague about the exact action.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives or in what contexts it's appropriate. The description mentions strategies but doesn't explain when to choose beam_search vs. mcts or their trade-offs. Without siblings, this is less severe, but the agent still lacks usage context.

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