preview_outcome

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

Annotations already cover read-only/write and destructive hints, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond them: no account/login/API key required, produces a browser link, takes only the finished assessment JSON, and forces 'scene' to 'outcome_quiz'. It does not discuss persistence or side effects, but the annotations plus these details give a solid behavioral picture.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then delivers usage guidance, alternatives, prerequisites, and parameter constraints in a compact sequence. Every sentence contributes new information; there is no filler or repetition of the input schema.

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 tool with one parameter, a rich output schema, and clear sibling definitions, the description covers all needed decision points: what the tool does, when to use it, when not to, authentication requirements, schema prerequisites, and a self-remediating instruction to call preview_guide if context is missing. Nothing essential is left unaddressed.

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% and there is only one parameter, form, which already describes the expected JSON shape. The description adds value by stating that the tool takes 'the finished assessment JSON and nothing else,' clarifying that no additional credentials or options are needed, and by pointing to preview_guide as the source of the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a shareable RooQuiz preview personality / outcome test' and immediately explains the voting mechanism. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming preview-quiz and preview-scorecard as different quiz types, so an agent can choose correctly without opening schemas.

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 this tool ('Use this when someone wants to build, try out, or share a personality quiz...') and gives alternatives with contrasting conditions: right/wrong graded quizzes go to preview-quiz, scored questionnaires go to preview-scorecard. It also provides a clear prerequisite: call preview_guide with type 'outcome' first unless the schema is already in context.

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