compute_urgency_composite

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does disclose the essential transformation: three sub-scores become a composite score and a categorical badge. However, it does not explain how the composite is computed, how the badge thresholds are chosen, or whether inputs must be normalized beyond the schema's range constraints. This is adequate as a minimal behavioral contract but leaves the computation opaque.

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 compact sentence with no filler. It front-loads the output (composite score and badge) and then specifies the inputs. Every element in the sentence carries useful information, and no words are wasted.

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?

There is no output schema or annotations, so the description must explain return values and invocation context. It does mention both outputs and all three inputs, which is useful. But it omits the computation method, the meaning of the sub-scores, and any caveats about valid inputs or edge cases. For a pure compute tool this is a workable but not fully complete description.

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 provides no descriptions for any of the three parameters, so the description's identification of 'news, pain, hiring' as sub-scores adds some semantic meaning that is absent from the schema. However, the description does not elaborate on what each signal score represents, how to interpret higher values, or how the three scores are combined. The parameter names are self-descriptive, so the added value beyond the schema is limited.

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 begins with the concrete verb 'Compose' and specifies the exact resource produced: composite_urgency_score (0-10) plus a badge with five enumerated values. It also names the three required inputs (news, pain, hiring), which makes the tool readily distinguishable from the many other compute_* siblings. The unique combination of urgency composite and the news/pain/hiring sub-scores leaves no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 states what the tool does but provides no guidance on when to choose it over sibling tools such as compute_lrs_composite or compute_collection_scores. There are no explicit alternatives, exclusions, or conditions such as 'use when you need the composite urgency score and already have the three sub-scores.' Usage context is only implicit from the tool name and description.

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