evaluate_fields

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return type (disposition per field) and the exact possible values ('post, review, or escaped'), and signals that it is a decision/routing tool rather than a mutating one. This is transparent enough for safe use, though it doesn't elaborate on side effects (likely none) or edge cases.

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, front-loaded with the core action and result. The second sentence gives a clear call-to-action. No wasted words or repetition of schema content.

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?

The description covers the essential context: what it decides, what it returns (including the three disposition values), and when to call it. It does not fully elaborate on the decision logic (e.g., how thresholds are applied), but that is partially covered by the schema. For a tool with a fairly rich parameter set, this is adequately 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?

The input schema already provides informative descriptions for all parameters, including the meaning of confidence, verification, and the threshold bars. The description itself does not add much parameter-level detail beyond naming the dispositions, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage but does not exceed it.

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 ('Decide') and names the resource ('extracted fields') and the outcome (disposition per field: post, review, or escaped). It clearly distinguishes from its sibling by framing this as the pre-action evaluation step ('Call this before acting on extracted data').

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool ('before acting on extracted data'), which is clear contextual guidance. However, it does not mention alternatives or exclusions relative to the sibling tool 'calibrate_threshold', so it stops short of full comparative guidance.

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