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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful behavior: the exact composition of the score and the caveat that Eval coverage is displayed but not yet weighted into the total. That caveat prevents a real misinterpretation of the returned number. It stops short of 5 because it says nothing about permissions, freshness/caching, or whether the score is computed live.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the caveat placed immediately after the component it qualifies. Every clause earns its place.

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 zero-required-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it names the returned components so the agent knows roughly what comes back. It does not describe the shape of the response (e.g., whether components are numeric scores or nested objects), which is the only remaining gap.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single optional "organisation" parameter already has a thorough description covering the slug source and the OAuth/API-key default behavior. The tool description adds nothing about the parameter, so the schema does all the work and baseline 3 applies.

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?

"Returns the organisation's trust score" is a specific verb+resource, and the description further decomposes the score into Security, Migration, Eval coverage, and the count of assets with accepted critical/high risk. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like get_migration_report or list_findings, which supply some of the same underlying data, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: the enumeration of score components suggests this is the high-level overview tool, but the description never says when to prefer it over get_migration_report, get_eval_run, or list_findings. There are no explicit when-not conditions or alternative routing.

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