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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Returns' communicates a read-only operation, and the note that re-weighting is done via sigil_score_batch reinforces that this tool does not modify defaults. However, it does not mention any potential side effects or permissions, though for a zero-parameter getter this is largely non-critical.

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, front-loaded with the main verb and resource. Every sentence adds value, and the pointer to sigil_score_batch is relevant. There is no redundancy or 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?

For a zero-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what it returns (active default weights and unevaluated components) and how it fits with sibling tools. This is complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 properties (100% schema coverage), so there are no parameters to describe. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description appropriately references a custom weights object only in the context of another tool, not this one.

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 'Returns the active, versioned default weights used to combine an entity's trust-score components, plus the list of spec components that are not yet evaluated.' This is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning how to re-weight via sigil_score_batch.

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?

It gives an explicit pointer to an alternative ('Pass a custom weights object to sigil_score_batch to re-weight without changing the defaults'), which tells the agent when to use this getter vs. the sibling tool. It does not explicitly state 'use this when you need to inspect defaults,' but the context is clear.

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