arch_review

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the endpoint, the exact return fields, per-call cost ($2.00 or less), required auth (ARCH_API_KEY), and a fail-closed error contract that explicitly forbids a fabricated pass. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before a paid, credentialed call.

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?

Five short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then mechanism, return shape, cost, failure mode, and exclusion. Every sentence carries distinct decision-relevant information with no repetition of schema fields.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description enumerates the return payload (review, passed, suggestions, charge_id, billing_status, meta) and covers cost, auth, and failure semantics. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema. The description adds only indirect meaning (that calls are paid, implying max_tokens affects cost) without explaining idempotency_key or payment_method_id beyond what the schema states, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Review') and a precise resource ('faith, Scripture, or doctrinal text') plus the publishing context it serves. The domain boundary ('Do not call for non-theological text') cleanly separates it from the kjv_lookup sibling, which serves a lookup rather than a review function.

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?

Gives clear when-to-use ('before publishing it') and an explicit when-not ('Do not call for non-theological text'). It does not name an alternative tool for non-theological review, but no sibling serves that need, so the omission is minor.

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