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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, so the safety profile needs no restating. Beyond that the description adds team scoping, the newest-first ordering, and the meaning of a null version (built-in desk default active), all of which the schema cannot convey. It stops short of describing size, caching, or whether multiple configs can coexist.

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 with the returned content front-loaded and the usage note second. The parenthetical inventory is dense but each item earns its place; the only mild drag is nesting the null-version explanation inside that list rather than after it.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining the return shape, and it does so by naming the three configuration components and the version list ordering. Missing only quantities an agent might want, such as how many versions are returned or whether the configuration can vary per portfolio.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to compensate for. The only semantic detail it supplies, that version null means the built-in default, concerns a returned field rather than an input, which is a small value-add but not a parameter concern.

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 precisely what the tool returns: the live scoring configuration (signal weights, status thresholds, evidence coverage floor) plus stored rubric versions, newest first. That is a specific resource with enumerated contents rather than a restatement of the name. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from named siblings, which keeps it 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?

"Use this to interpret the status bands and scores that the portfolio and risk tools return" gives a concrete purpose-driven trigger. There is no natural competing tool for reading the rubric, so the absence of explicit exclusions costs little, but it also never says when not to call it.

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