detect_red_flags

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It states it 'Returns flags found and a CLEAN/CAUTION/WALK verdict,' which outlines the output clearly. The 'Scan' wording implies a read-only operation, though it doesn't explicitly state side-effect freedom. No contradictions.

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: the first identifies the action and scope, the second specifies the return value. Every word adds value, and it is front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description is complete: it covers the input (prospect's reply/brief), the process (scan for signals), and the output (flags + verdict). No significant gaps.

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 schema has 100% description coverage for the single 'text' parameter. The description repeats the 'reply or brief' context without adding further parameter-level detail, so it meets the baseline for schema-heavy design without extra value.

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 the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Scan') and resource ('prospect's reply or brief'), and enumerates the exact red flags detected (exposure-pay, spec-work, pay-on-performance, budget mismatch, scope-creep probes). This makes it distinct from sibling tools like handle_reply or audit_cold_message.

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 implies when to use the tool: when you have a prospect's reply or brief and want to check for walk-away signals. It provides clear context but does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives for contrast, though the unique purpose reduces ambiguity.

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