athena_cohesion_solo_party_compare

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses key behaviors: evidence gating, UNKNOWN for weak/ambiguous matching, and the descriptive-only nature of results. However, it omits side effects, output structure, or any operational constraints such as required permissions.

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?

Two sentences with no filler, front-loaded with the core purpose. The dense terminology may reduce readability, but every phrase adds information and the description is not bloated.

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 description conveys essential semantic caveats for a complex tool with a nested schema and no output schema, but it fails to explain the return format, matching mechanics, or the roles of several parameters. It is adequate for a high-level understanding but leaves notable gaps for safe and correct invocation.

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%, and the description provides no explicit parameter guidance. It alludes to solo_samples/party_samples via 'SOLO versus PARTY mission samples' and decision_rule via 'supplied predeclared rule', but leaves comparison_id, observer_id, and remote unexplained.

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 identifies the tool as an evidence-gated matched descriptive comparison between SOLO and PARTY mission samples under a predeclared rule. It distinguishes itself from causal inference siblings by explicitly stating it is not a causal effect claim or promotion witness.

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?

It provides clear context for when to use: when a descriptive, evidence-gated comparison under a predeclared rule is needed, with weak matches returning UNKNOWN. It explicitly states what it is not, but does not name alternative sibling tools or provide an explicit 'when not to use' beyond those exclusions.

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