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

Annotations already indicate this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context by explaining the version null meaning, the ordering of rubric versions (newest first), and the distinction between live configuration and stored versions. This goes beyond what annotations alone provide.

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 concise and well-structured, with the primary purpose stated upfront and supporting details provided in a compact parenthetical. The second sentence gives a clear usage directive without redundancy. Every sentence 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?

Given there is no output schema, the description sufficiently enumerates what the tool returns: live scoring configuration (signal weights, status thresholds, evidence-coverage floor, version) and stored rubric versions newest first. It also explains the intended interpretation use case. No critical information is missing for an agent to invoke and understand this tool effectively.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The description appropriately focuses on the tool's return content instead. This matches the baseline for a no-parameter tool.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: it explains how scores are produced for the caller's team by returning the live scoring configuration and stored rubric versions. It identifies specific content elements (signal weights, status thresholds, evidence-coverage floor) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools focused on search, profiles, and portfolio data.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: to interpret status bands and scores returned by portfolio and risk tools. While it does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, the provided context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately among siblings.

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