public_proof_pack

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

No annotations are present, and the description provides minimal behavioral insight beyond parameter hints (e.g., '72-hour public campaign target'). It does not disclose side effects, authentication needs, or safety profile.

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 structured with a one-line summary followed by a clear parameter list. It is not overly verbose, though the parameter descriptions could be more concise.

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?

The description adequately covers parameter semantics but lacks usage context, differentiation from siblings, and behavioral details. Given the presence of an output schema, return values are not required, but overall completeness is moderate.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the parameter descriptions in the text add significant meaning, explaining each parameter's role and context (e.g., 'target_contributors: 72-hour public campaign target used in proof URLs'). This compensates well for the schema 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 states it is a 'no-network Growth/Share proof kit and external contributor invite' but does not clearly specify the action (create, generate) or differentiate from siblings like 'growth_campaign' or 'public_growth_report'. The purpose is vague.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No explicit conditions or exclusions are provided, leaving the agent without direction for appropriate invocation.

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