score

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It does add useful behavioral context by stating that the result is a 'probability-weighted score plus the distribution.' However, it does not address side effects, failure modes, or requirements such as how criteria should be ordered or validated.

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?

Two concise sentences with no filler. The action and target are front-loaded, and the output behavior is stated immediately afterward. Every word 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?

For a relatively simple tool with an output schema present, the description covers the core inputs and return shape adequately. Still, it lacks usage alternatives and leaves the optional instructions parameter undefined, making it sufficient but 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'criteria' form a low-to-high ordered scale and that 'text' is the target being rated, which adds meaning beyond the raw schema. However, the optional 'instructions' parameter is left completely 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Rate'), identifies the resource ('a text'), and clearly defines the scale as 'ordered scale given by criteria (low to high)'. This reasonably differentiates it from siblings like decide, classify, and check, though it does not explicitly name them.

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 this tool is for rating a text on an ordered scale, but it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance and does not contrast it with the sibling tools decide, classify, or check. An agent must infer when this tool is preferred over alternatives.

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