interpret_benchmark

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It states the tool 'Returns healthy range, warning threshold, and the diagnostic note,' which clarifies output behavior. While it does not explicitly say it is read-only or non-mutating, the 'interpret' verb and return-focus imply a safe operation.

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 purpose and metric list, then output details. Every phrase adds value, with no filler or repetition.

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, two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it states what the metric list is, what it returns, and the purpose. It could mention that observed_value is optional or describe error conditions, but the core usage and return values are adequately covered for the tool's complexity.

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 50%: observed_value has a description, and metric is defined by enum but no prose description. The tool description lists the metric names (redundant with the enum) but does not explain how observed_value is used or the output format relative to parameters. It adds little beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Interpret an outreach metric against practitioner benchmarks' and lists the exact metrics handled. It distinguishes the tool by focusing on metric interpretation and the specific return values (healthy range, warning threshold, diagnostic note).

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 gives clear context: use when you have one of the listed outreach metrics and want to compare it to benchmarks. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the metric enumeration and 'interpret' verb make the intended use obvious relative to sibling diagnostic tools.

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