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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, and the description is consistent with that by disclosing that the score is opened 'as a draft' rather than mutated in place, plus the account-link prerequisite. It stops short of describing failure modes or what happens to an existing draft.

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 dense sentence front-loads the action and result, then appends the id source, the alternative tool, and the prerequisite. Everything earns its place, though the chained clauses make it slightly run-on.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, yet the description still names the draft and summary and points to read_score for measures. The account-link requirement is covered; only edge cases (unlinked account, invalid id) are unaddressed.

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 id parameter is fully documented there; the description only repeats the same provenance ('by the id list_my_scores gives'). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries parameter meaning.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Open one score of the linked account as a draft') and names its closest sibling distinction ('read_score reads its measures'), so an agent can tell it apart from read_score and list_my_scores without opening a schema.

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?

Gives clear provenance for the required argument ('the id list_my_scores gives') and states the prerequisite 'Needs the account linked'. It also implicitly routes measure-level reads to read_score, but there is no explicit when-not or exclusion statement.

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