qa

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, non-destructive, and open-world. The description adds behavioral context by stating that each answer carries its question and a 'closed trust state' and that the output is not a validity score. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand the output semantics, though it does not address prerequisites or side effects.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the command and immediately followed by output clarification. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundant or filler content. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 presence of an output schema covers return values, but the description lacks parameter semantics and provides minimal context for the domain-specific 'Coverage Inventory'. An agent would need additional information about what inputs are required and when this tool is appropriate, making the description incomplete despite the concise structure.

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?

The input schema includes two parameters ('ref' and 'full') with no descriptions, and the schema description coverage is 0%. The tool description does not mention either parameter, leaving the agent with no information about what 'ref' refers to or what 'full' controls. This is a critical gap for correct invocation.

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 clearly states a specific action ('Run') and a specific resource ('the 100-question extraction Coverage Inventory'), and it clarifies that the output is not a validity score. However, the term 'Coverage Inventory' is undefined and the description does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings like 'quiz' or 'report', so it falls short of full clarity.

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?

The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'this is not a validity score' hints at a distinction from something else, but it does not name an alternative or explain under what conditions this tool should be chosen. Without this, an agent cannot reliably decide between this and sibling tools.

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