athena_decision_evi

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It indicates a computation ('Rank') but does not disclose side effects, state changes, permissions, or whether it is read-only. 'DESIGN_ONLY' hints at a design-mode restriction but is too vague to convey behavioral traits.

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 very short, with a single sentence conveying the core function. However, the appended 'DESIGN_ONLY' is cryptic and not structured as an understandable note, slightly detracting from clarity.

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 tool with 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description lacks essential context. It does not clarify what 'expected improvement in downstream decision utility' means, what inputs are required, what the output looks like, or how it relates to EVSI/EVPI. The 'DESIGN_ONLY' tag does not sufficiently compensate.

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% with no parameter descriptions, and the tool description does not explain any of the five parameters. Terms like 'candidate experiments' map to 'experiments' but no meaning is added for context_key, actions, cost_weight, or risk_weight.

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 ranks candidate experiments based on expected improvement in decision utility, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like athena_decision_evsi and athena_decision_evpi, and 'DESIGN_ONLY' is ambiguous.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description does not mention any exclusion criteria or preferred use cases beyond the cryptic 'DESIGN_ONLY', which is not explained. No sibling tools are referenced.

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