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

The description reveals a deliberate design behavior: 'Strale deliberately exposes no single numeric quality score — judge from the test history and limitations.' It also states 'No API key required,' and outlines the return fields (lifecycle state, timestamps, etc.). With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well.

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 4 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, then usage, return contents, and a key caveat. Every sentence adds value, with no fluff.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately covers when to use it, what it returns, and a critical design constraint (no numeric score). It also notes authentication. This is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool.

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% with both slug and type described, including examples. The description only adds general context (trust profile) and doesn't extend parameter syntax or format, so a baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('trust profile') and clarifies scope (capability or solution). It also notes usage context, making it clear what the tool does and when it applies.

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?

Explicitly says 'Call this before relying on a capability for high-stakes decisions, or when a user asks how reliable a specific check is,' giving clear when-to-use guidance. It doesn't list alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient.

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