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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states the operation ('rerank') without disclosing whether the input array is mutated, what the return format is, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 a single, concise sentence—'Rerank documents by query relevance'—with zero wasted words. The main verb-object structure is front-loaded, making it easy to scan and appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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?

With only two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should provide at least a hint about the return value (e.g., a reordered array) and any behavioral expectations. It omits these, so an agent cannot reliably predict the tool's output or usage boundaries.

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?

The description clarifies the relationship between the two parameters: 'query' is the relevance criterion, and 'documents' are the items being reranked. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema types, but it does not explain the expected format of documents, constraints on list size, or if any additional scoring options exist, so compensation is partial.

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 the specific verb "rerank" and identifies the resource "documents" along with the criterion "query relevance", making the tool's function unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools such as text_similarity or compare_texts by focusing on the act of reordering based on relevance.

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?

The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or situational context, leaving the agent to infer when reranking is appropriate compared to other document-comparison tools.

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