password_strength

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does meaningful work: it reveals the scoring rubric (five named criteria), discloses that the password is scored locally and never transmitted, and sets expectations that the result is advisory rather than a security guarantee. What is missing is only what the improvement explanation contains, which the output schema already covers.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the outcome, followed by the rubric and then the caveat. Every sentence adds information not present in the structured fields, and nothing is redundant.

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 scoring logic, privacy handling, and the interpretation caveat. The only gap is the absence of explicit sibling routing, which is minor given how distinct this tool's function is.

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 coverage is 0% and the single parameter 'password' is a bare string with no constraints in the schema. The description compensates for the most important semantic point by stating the value is processed locally and never sent anywhere, but adds nothing about length limits, encoding, or whether the plaintext is echoed back.

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: 'Score a password 0-5 and explain how to improve it.' It is immediately distinguishable from the siblings check_password_breach (breach lookup) and generate_password (creation), so an agent can route correctly without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is only implied: the tool is presumably for evaluating a password the user already has, and the caveat 'strength hint, not a guarantee' hints at when its result is insufficient. It never explicitly says when to prefer check_password_breach or generate_password instead, nor any prerequisites, so the agent must infer the routing.

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