Dietary Build Probabilistic Intake Summary

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

With readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, annotations already establish safety. The description adds 'governed' and 'cohort-bootstrap', providing some methodological context but not clarifying outputs, side effects, or limitations. It does not contradict annotations, and the added context is minimal but non-zero.

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 sentence and structurally front-loaded, but it is concise at the expense of clarity. It uses jargon ('governed cohort-bootstrap review support') that likely obfuscates rather than clarifies. Conciseness is valued, but this sentence does not earn its place due to low informative content.

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?

Despite a complex schema with nested objects and an output schema, the description remains incomplete. It does not explain what the tool produces, how it relates to the survey dataset and residue profile, or how it compares to sibling tools like dietary_summarize_survey_distribution. The description is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's role in the dietary workflow.

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% for the single 'request' parameter. The description does not explain what fields the request should contain or how the nested structures (dataset, residue_profile) are used. The only hint is 'raw survey distributions', which loosely maps to 'dataset' but leaves the residue_profile and numeric parameters (randomSeed, iterationCount) unexplained.

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 'Execute governed cohort-bootstrap review support over raw survey distributions' uses the vague verb 'execute' and an abstract object 'review support'. It does not clearly state that it builds a probabilistic intake summary, and it fails to distinguish from siblings like dietary_build_bounded_intake_summary or dietary_summarize_survey_distribution.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or context for selecting this over sibling tools such as dietary_summarize_survey_distribution or dietary_build_bounded_intake_summary. The reference to 'cohort-bootstrap' implies a statistical context but not actionable usage direction.

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