athena_elder_rank

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It adds a valuable behavioral trait: ranking is evidence-based, not age-based. However, it does not disclose other traits such as side effects, permissions, or return format. This is minimal but meaningful transparency.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence. Every word adds value: the verb 'Rank', the object 'elder/cultural authority', the qualifier 'evidence-backed', and the scope. No redundancy or filler.

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 3 parameters, no required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the meaning of 'limit' or 'min_observations', the ranking criteria beyond 'evidence-backed', or what the returned ranking looks like. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without additional information.

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%, so the description must compensate. It only implies the 'scope' parameter via 'within a scope', leaving 'limit' and 'min_observations' entirely unexplained. This is insufficient for an agent to correctly invoke the tool with all parameters.

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 function: ranking elder/cultural authority based on evidence within a scope. It highlights a key behavioral distinction (age alone confers no authority), which differentiates it from a naive age-based ranking and from sibling tools like athena_elder_observe.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description implies use for ranking evidence-backed authority but provides no exclusions, prerequisites, or comparisons with sibling tools. The agent must infer usage context.

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