suggest_ehn

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only (readOnlyHint=true) and non-destructive. The description adds context about the redaction process and free third-party review, providing behavioral details beyond the annotations. No contradiction.

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 concise with three distinct sentences in each language: first states what it returns, second adds key features (free, redaction), third specifies usage context. Front-loaded with the action, no wasted words.

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?

Given no parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what the tool does, when to use it, and key behavioral traits. It could be slightly more detailed about the output format, but it's adequate for an agent to decide invocation.

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, and the baseline is 4 per instructions. The description adds meaning by explaining the output (guide and URL) even though there are no parameters to describe.

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 clearly states the tool returns a short guide and submission URL for EHN, an anonymous review board for estimates. It specifies the resource (EHN guide and URL) and the verb (returns), distinguishing it from sibling tools like audit_estimate or red_flag_check which perform direct analysis.

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 explicitly states when to use: 'when the user asks for a second opinion on an estimate or where to have one reviewed.' It provides clear context for invocation but does not mention alternatives or when not to use, which would push it to 5.

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