Grade landing-page hero copy

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the tool is 'Deterministic, no LLM, no network' and details the output structure (score, verdict, sub-scores, flags, rewrites). It also notes score comparability to a public dataset. No contradictions.

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 long, front-loading the core purpose and dimensions. Every sentence adds unique information: the scoring behavior, the output details, and the comparability context. While slightly dense, it remains efficient and clear.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description comprehensively covers what the tool does, how it behaves (deterministic), and what it returns. It also connects to sibling tools indirectly via the dataset mention, making it fully informative for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 covers all 3 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining how each parameter relates to the scoring dimensions (e.g., 'empty CTA scores 0 on that dimension') and the optional nature of subhead and cta. This goes beyond the schema, earning a 4.

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's purpose: scoring landing-page hero copy across five weighted dimensions. It uses specific verbs ('Score') and resource ('landing-page hero copy'), and the explicit mention of dimensions, return values, and comparability to a public dataset effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'check_ai_slop' and 'get_slop_stats'.

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 provides strong context on when to use this tool (scoring landing pages) and highlights key properties like determinism and no network dependency, which imply when not to use it (e.g., when you need generative AI or external data). However, it does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions, so a 4 is appropriate.

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