Score readability

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint). The description adds behavioral context by noting that it produces both numeric scores and a plain-language interpretation, which informs the agent about the nature of the output beyond the structured annotations.

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 sentences, no fluff, and the core computation is front-loaded before the usage guidance. Every phrase 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 simple one-parameter, read-only tool with a full output schema and rich annotations, the description fully equips an agent to invoke it correctly. It states what is computed, what kind of output is generated, and the intended use case.

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 input schema fully documents the single 'text' parameter as 'The text to score' (100% coverage), so the description does not need to add much. It confirms the purpose of the text but adds no format, length, or language constraints.

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 verb ('Compute') and resource ('Flesch Reading Ease and Flesch-Kincaid grade level'), naming concrete outputs that distinguish it from siblings like text_stats or summarize_text. The title 'Score readability' is also reinforced, not merely restated.

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: 'Use it to check whether a draft matches its intended audience before publishing.' This tells the agent when to apply the tool, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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