Explain an assessment result

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false), and the description adds useful operational context that annotations cannot express: it runs locally, makes no API call, and consumes no credits. It does not describe failure behavior on malformed input, which is the main remaining gap.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the resource, that still packs scope, output granularity, and the no-cost constraint. No filler and nothing repeated from the name or title.

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 one-parameter, read-only analysis tool with no output schema, the description gives enough: input provenance, what the explanation covers, and that there is no side effect or cost. Only the shape of the explanation output and behavior on invalid JSON are left unstated.

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% and there is only one parameter, so the schema already documents that it accepts the assessment object or its string form. The description adds the provenance of that value (output of assess_pronunciation), but nothing about format tolerance or validation beyond that. Baseline 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?

Specific verb (explain) plus a precisely scoped resource (a TonePerfect assessment JSON) and granularity (word by word, score meanings, flagged sounds, practice advice). It also names the sibling that produces the input, so an agent can distinguish this from assess_pronunciation without opening either schema.

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 clearly places itself downstream of assess_pronunciation ('the output of assess_pronunciation'), which tells an agent when to reach for it. It offers no explicit exclusions or alternative routes, but the sibling set is small and the ordering between the two tools is unambiguous.

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