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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no further behavioral context such as whether the operation is asynchronous, expected duration, effect on existing scores, or any side effects. It does not contradict annotations but fails to add value beyond them.

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 a single, focused sentence: 'Trigger score recomputation.' It contains no redundant words, is front-loaded, and effectively communicates the core action. This is an example of appropriate conciseness, not under-specification.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does not explain what happens after triggering recomputation—whether it is synchronous, how to check results, or how long it takes. While the schema covers the input parameters and annotations describe the safety profile, the description lacks essential context about the tool's effect and follow-up steps, making it incomplete for an agent to use confidently.

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%: objectType and objectIds are fully described, including that objectIds for company are domains, for contact are LinkedIn URLs, and capped at 500 per request. The description 'Trigger score recomputation' adds no extra meaning to the parameters, so the default baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Trigger score recomputation' names a specific action and resource, clearly indicating a recompute operation. It is more informative than a tautology because 'recomputation' implies updating existing scores. However, it does not specify target entities or explicitly distinguish from siblings like scoring-scores-get or scoring-profile-create, so it lacks full sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as scoring-scores-get or scoring-assignment-create. The description does not mention when recomputation is needed, what prerequisites exist, or when not to use it. The only hint is the parameter description about pagination, which is not tool-level usage guidance.

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