Idea Evaluate

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value: it discloses that ai_needed and build_complexity are heuristics passed to Claude to judge, and flags the payload as untrusted_content — a security-relevant trait not encoded in any annotation.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence followed by tightly labeled Use when / Not for / Returns blocks with no filler. Slight deduction because the Returns field list is redundant given a full output schema exists and could be trimmed.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't enumerate return keys, yet it still does so compactly without harm. Combined with the explicit routing guidance and the untrusted_content caveat, an agent has everything needed to select and invoke it correctly.

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 100% with all five parameters individually documented (term, genre, country, leaders, name_candidates), so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond it; the mention of available_name only loosely hints at name_candidates. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a concrete verb and resource ('Build the evidence bundle to rank one idea') with explicit scope ('in any category'), and names the sibling it must not be confused with (aso_niche_score). An agent can distinguish it from aso_niche_score and idea_harvest without opening any schema.

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?

Uses explicit 'Use when: comparing shortlisted ideas after idea_harvest' and 'Not for: a quick score only (use aso_niche_score)', giving both the triggering condition and the named alternative. This is the exact when/when-not/alternative structure the rubric rewards.

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