score

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the policy is server-side and explains the PARTIAL verdict behavior, which is useful. However, it does not mention side effects, idempotency, or whether the tool can be called multiple times for the same answer.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the core purpose in the first sentence. The second and third sentences provide crucial guidance about the server-side policy and the probe cue without unnecessary wordiness.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential context: what to record, what the verdict means, and how to act on a specific verdict. It does not explain all possible verdicts, but the output schema likely covers return values, making the description sufficiently 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 100%, so the schema already documents the `covered` parameter as component ids from the rubric. The description adds the concept of 'semantic matching' and reinforces that the agent supplies that matching, but it does not add substantive new parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Record which rubric components the answer covered, and get the verdict.' This clearly states the tool's function and differentiates it from siblings by referencing the verdict and the probe alternative.

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 explicit guidance on when to use `probe` instead of moving on: 'A PARTIAL verdict with a named gap is your cue to probe rather than move on.' It also explains the server-side policy, providing clear context for use, though it does not enumerate all exclusions.

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