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

Annotations already establish readOnly/safe behavior, so the description is free to add richer context — it discloses exactly what is returned (persisted pre/post scored cohorts, model IDs, score definition, estimated cost delta) and the differing input requirements per claim type. This is meaningful disclosure beyond the annotations.

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?

Front-loaded lead sentence states the tool's purpose, followed by mode-specific detail and example queries. Slightly dense but every sentence carries information; no obvious filler.

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 no output schema, the description steps in to describe the return payload (cohorts, IDs, score definition, cost delta), covering what would otherwise be a gap. Remaining ambiguity about sibling selection keeps it from a 5.

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 baseline is 3; the description adds value by explaining that issueIndex is only needed for prompt-fix claims and that model swaps work without it, clarifying conditional parameter usage beyond the schema text.

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 'Show' and resource 'actual runs behind a verification claim', and differentiates the two operating modes (model swaps vs prompt fixes). It does not explicitly name a sibling like get_run or get_worst_run, so an agent must still infer the boundary against those tools.

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 conditional usage: model swaps need only a deployment ID, while prompt fixes need a deployment ID plus issue index. It does not, however, state when NOT to use this tool or name alternatives (e.g. get_deployment_impact, get_score_timeline).

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