Prove the assistant works (scripted visitors)

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

The description reveals important behavior beyond the sparse annotations: duration ('about a minute'), rate limit ('a few runs per hour'), side-effect profile in preview mode ('creates no bookings or emails'), and persistence ('stored result feeds the launch checklist'). This gives an agent a strong mental model of the tool's runtime and side effects.

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 three sentences of dense, useful information. It front-loads the core action and output, then adds constraints and context, with every sentence earning its place. No filler or redundancy.

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 no parameters and an output schema present, the description covers the essential operational context: what it does, what it returns conceptually, side effects, prerequisites, time cost, rate limits, and downstream use. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to decide to invoke it.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline for this dimension is 4. There is no parameter semantics to document, and the description appropriately focuses on behavior rather than adding unnecessary parameter detail.

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 states a specific action ('Send scripted visitors to the saved assistant') and a clear deliverable ('return pass/fail verdicts with full transcripts'). It also names the visitor types (buyer, callback lead, adversarial visitor), making the tool's purpose concrete and distinguishable from siblings.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: it feeds the launch checklist and preview mode is safe because it creates no bookings or emails and requires no live widget. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the tool is unique among siblings and the usage context is well implied.

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