compute_collection_scores

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states determinism ('deterministic'), side-effect-free execution ('Pure math'), and independence from external services ('No external calls'), which are valuable behavioral traits. It does not discuss failure modes or performance, but for a computation tool these are reasonable omissions.

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 exceptionally compact: two sentences pack the key facts (what is computed, the count, the value ranges, the outputs, determinism, and the no-external-calls guarantee). Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description names the major output categories (scores, badges, death reason), which is sufficient for a deterministic computation tool. The main gap is the undocumented analysisId parameter and the lack of input-shape expectations, but the overall description is reasonably complete for the tool's complexity.

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 only 50%: analysisId has no description, and enrichedData only has a terse 'canonical_idea signals' note. The description adds little beyond reiterating that the input is an 'enriched idea'; it does not clarify the role of analysisId or what enrichedData must contain.

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 names the exact action ('Compute'), the resource ('12 deterministic collection scores'), and the output components (badges, death reason). It also specifies the input state ('for an enriched idea'), making its purpose unambiguous and distinct from the sibling compute_* tools.

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 phrase 'for an enriched idea' implies the tool should be used when enriched data is available, and 'Pure math. No external calls' gives useful context about its execution environment. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over sibling compute_* tools, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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