teneo_evaluate_book

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It hints that the book must already exist ('existing generated book'), but omits whether the operation is read-only or mutating, what forceRestart and evaluationMode do, whether it is long-running, and any auth or rate-limit context.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the action and target are immediately clear. It is arguably too terse for the tool's complexity, but the sentence itself is structurally efficient.

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 four parameters, an enum, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the one-sentence description leaves critical invocation context missing. It states the basic action but not return behavior, mode differences, or restart semantics.

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 all four parameters, and the description adds no meaning for fullBookId, forceRestart, evaluationMode, or rewriteVersion. With no compensation for the coverage gap, an agent must guess from parameter names alone.

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?

States a specific verb ('Run a Teneo evaluation') and resource ('existing generated book'), which separates it from generation and research siblings like teneo_generate_book and teneo_research_niche. However, it does not name a sibling alternative or explain what a Teneo evaluation actually covers, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Provides no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It never mentions related siblings such as teneo_book_status or explains when evaluation is preferable to other steps.

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