proof_debt

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that all parameters are optional, that defaults mirror an interactive calculator, and that the response contains result, formula, interpretation, and a cite_as sentence. This goes well beyond a bare operation statement and gives a clear picture of what the tool returns.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by parameter guidance and response contents. The opening label 'Proof Debt Accumulator:' is slightly redundant with the tool name, but each sentence earns its place and there is minimal wasted 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?

For a 7-parameter optional calculator with no output schema and no annotations, the description is well-rounded: it gives scope, defaults, and the response structure. It could be slightly more complete by noting the calculation is read-only or by giving an example, but the core invocation context is sufficiently covered.

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 description coverage is 100%, with each of the 7 numeric parameters already documented with its default value. The description adds a useful aggregate fact — all parameters are optional and defaults mirror the online calculator — but does not explain individual parameter meanings beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 computes the cost of unverified AI work over time, naming backlog, deferred-review premium, and incident liability. This is a specific calculation purpose, though it does not explicitly distinguish the tool from sibling metrics like verification_bottleneck or proof_adjusted_autonomy.

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 framing 'What does unverified AI work cost over time?' implies when to use the tool, and the note that all parameters are optional gives practical guidance. However, it never addresses when to prefer this tool over the related sibling tools, nor mentions any exclusions or prerequisites.

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