Evaluate a VisiMark document

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

Annotations already declare a safe read-only, non-destructive profile, and the description adds genuinely non-obvious context beyond that: a false assertion is reported as a successful result, and scenario evaluation needs 'no temp file' (no side effects on disk). It still doesn't characterize the response shape or whether failures throw vs. report.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core verb and result, then parameter routing, then the critical caveat about false assertions. No filler or repetition of schema text.

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 output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so (values, assertions, charts). It covers the main invocation modes; the only gap is the relationship/ordering between `path`/`content` and evaluation errors, which is mostly covered by 'never both'.

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 coverage is 100%, so 3 is the baseline, but the description earns above it by explaining functional semantics the schema does not: what `get` selects, that scenarioPath/scenarioContent substitute parameters, and that scenario evaluation is a draft-against-draft, no-temp-file operation.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Evaluate a document') and enumerates the return surface (values, assertions, charts). It does not name any sibling (visimark_check, visimark_ref, visimark_infer), so an agent must infer why evaluation differs from checking or referencing.

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?

Gives conditional guidance for two parameters ('Give `get` to select a single named value', 'Give `scenarioPath` or `scenarioContent` to substitute parameters'), which implies usage. However it never states when to prefer this tool over visimark_check or the other siblings, and offers no exclusions.

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