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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about recency, theatre grouping, and the composite/sub-score structure, but it does not disclose default limit behavior or pagination.

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?

One tightly written sentence that is front-loaded with the core domain and scoping ('posture_scores rows per theatre') and contains no filler. Every phrase contributes meaningful information.

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 read-only query with strong annotations, the core purpose and output composition are adequately covered, and the theatre enum is available in the schema. However, with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the missing limit semantics and default behavior leave an agent uncertain about row counts and optional filtering.

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 0% and no property descriptions exist, so the free-text description must compensate. It only hints at theatre_slug through 'per theatre' and never explains the limit parameter or how it interacts with theatre_slug. The enum values are in the schema, but the meaning of the optional limit is left ambiguous.

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 names a concrete resource ('posture_scores rows') and a specific return shape ('composite + 5-domain sub-scores'), so an agent knows exactly what this tool fetches. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling query_* tools, but the posture_scores domain is unique enough to avoid confusion.

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 phrase 'Most recent ... per theatre' implies the tool is for retrieving the latest posture scores, which gives some usage context. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternative query tools or what conditions would make a sibling more appropriate.

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