explain_optimization

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world). The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the server persists no history and does not authenticate caller-supplied results, which tells the agent the input is untrusted and non-persistent. It does not describe the output payload, but that is largely covered by the output schema.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the core action front-loaded and the caveats second. Every clause carries information.

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 output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description adequately covers the trust/persistence model. However, for a tool whose only input is a huge nested result object, the description gives no orientation about what must be supplied beyond 'optimization result,' leaving a real gap.

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 0% for a single required parameter whose shape is a very large, deeply nested required IR object. 'Supplied optimization result' usefully implies the input is the payload returned by optimize_prompt, but the description adds nothing about the required members, so an agent still depends entirely on 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Explain a supplied optimization result and its pass decisions.' The scope (result plus pass decisions) is concrete enough to distinguish it from optimize_prompt or evaluate_prompt, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

'Use for audit' gives a clear use context, and the clause about no stored history implies the result must be produced and handed over in the same session. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., vs. evaluate_prompt), so it is context without exclusions.

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