Translate to Practice

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

ReadOnlyHint already signals a non-mutating operation; the description adds useful behavioral context about evidence-based management framing, honest confidence communication, and the BLUF-led output scaffold. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three tightly written sentences front-load the core purpose, then add method/philosophy and output/companion guidance. 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?

The description is complete given the tool complexity: it explains inputs, audience options, decision sharpening, output type (BLUF-led scaffold), and next step (pair with internal-comms). No output schema is needed because the deliverable is well characterized.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces what audience and decision do (shaping emphasis and the ask) but does not add new parameter-level details beyond 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 uses a specific verb phrase ('Convert research findings into a decision-maker brief') and names exact audience types. It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like synthesise-evidence by focusing on translation to practice and outputting a BLUF-led brief scaffold.

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 gives concrete context (when to use: research findings to decision-maker brief) and explicitly recommends pairing with the internal-comms skill for final formatting. It does not explicitly state when not to use or contrast with upstream tools like appraise-evidence, but the intended use case is clear.

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