calculate_sri_score

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the core behavior (calculating and interpreting) and the mocked nature, but leaves ambiguity about what 'mocked' means (answers vs. calculation) and does not describe the output format, score range, or how missing/invalid answers are handled.

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 sentence with no filler. It front-loads the verb and resource, and the parenthetical 'mocked' adds an important caveat without bloating the text.

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 tool is simple with one well-documented parameter, but lacks an output schema. The description mentions 'interpret' but does not specify what the returned interpretation looks like or whether the score is numeric, categorical, etc., so it is not fully complete.

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 already provides 100% coverage of the single 'answers' parameter with a clear description ('A dictionary mapping question IDs to numeric scores'). The tool description adds no new parameter semantics beyond restating that user answers are used.

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 uses a specific verb ('calculate and interpret') and a clear resource ('SRI score'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_sri_questionnaire (fetching questions) and search_sexual_psychology_kb (searching). The phrase 'based on user answers' clarifies the input source.

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 usage when you have user answers and need an SRI score, but does not explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives. The '(mocked)' parenthetical provides a caveat about the tool's nature but no concrete when-not-to-use guidance.

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