compute_social_pain

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

Annotations are not provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states only the outputs and gives no information about side effects, required inputs, computation logic, error conditions, or return structure. There is no contradiction, but the transparency is minimal.

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 that conveys the core purpose efficiently. It lists all key outputs with scant waste, though its brevity leaves important behavioral and parameter details unaddressed.

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 four parameters, a required painMentions field, nested categoryCounts, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It defines what the tool returns but not how inputs map to outputs, leaving an agent to guess parameter semantics and the exact return shape.

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% and the description does not explain any of the four parameters. It indirectly hints at categories through 'dominant perspective (business/consumer/trend/mixed)', which maps to categoryCounts, but intentMentions and urgencyMentions remain unexplained.

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?

Description uses the specific verb 'Compute' and clearly identifies the output: social_pain_score (0-30), total mentions, and dominant perspective. The resource is unambiguous and distinct from siblings like compute_search_velocity, though no explicit sibling differentiation is stated.

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 information about when to use this tool versus alternatives, what conditions warrant it, or what prerequisites exist. The sentence implies it is used to compute social pain metrics, but gives no exclusion criteria or context that would help an agent choose among the many compute_* siblings.

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