engagement_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the output categories ('healthy, weak or suspicious') and the tier classification behavior, implying a pure read-only computation, but says nothing about thresholds, determinism, or how inputs are bounded.

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 tightly written sentence that front-loads the core action and packs in both the classification and the verdict. No wasted words or filler.

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?

No output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema coverage mean the description should explain return values and input semantics more fully. It covers the output categories at a high level but leaves thresholds, input formats, and error behavior unaddressed.

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 ties 'followers' to a follower tier and 'engagement_rate_pct' to engagement health, giving domain meaning to both required params, but provides no units, ranges, or format details for either.

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 gives a concrete verb+resource pair: classify a creator's follower tier and judge engagement health. It clearly states what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like campaign_math or check_disclosure.

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 versus the siblings (campaign_math, check_disclosure, draft_brief), no prerequisites, and no exclusions. Usage is only implied by the description's scope.

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