exposure_rank

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

With no annotations, the description itself carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds the concrete trait 'deterministically' and indicates that the result is a Pareto-efficient selection, valuable non-obvious information. However, it does not describe side effects, permissions, or the return format beyond this selection, leaving a residual transparency gap.

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?

A single, tight sentence that front-loads the action and is free of filler. Every word contributes to the core concept, making it easy to parse and retain.

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 tool has nested objects (graph and scenarios), no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description stays only at a high level. It does not explain what relative structure the graph must take, what counts as a counterfactual scenario, or how the resulting Pareto-efficient options are represented. This is insufficient for correct invocation by an agent.

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%, so the description must compensate. It gives 'scenarios' a semantic meaning as 'counterfactual scenarios', but the 'graph' parameter is not mentioned at all, and no guidance is provided on the structure or relationship between the two parameters.

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 a specific verb ('Rank') and resource ('multiple counterfactual scenarios'), and adds the distinct function of identifying Pareto-efficient options. This separates it from siblings exposure_baseline and exposure_simulate, though it does not explicitly name them as alternatives.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus exposure_baseline or exposure_simulate. The phrase 'multiple counterfactual scenarios' implies a use case, but it does not provide conditions, alternatives, or exclusions.

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