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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint) and idempotency. The description adds the scoping to a profile, which is a behavioral trait beyond annotations, but it does not disclose other behaviors like error handling, result ordering, or permission requirements. Acceptable but minimal additional value.

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, concise sentence that conveys the essential information without redundancy. Every word earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the verb and resource.

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 simple read-only list tool with one required parameter and rich annotations, the description is sufficient. There is no output schema, and the tool's behavior is straightforward. No critical information is missing.

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 already provides 100% coverage with a clear description for the only parameter (profileId: 'Scoring profile UUID'). The description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the 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 clearly states the action ('List'), the resource ('scoring rules'), and the scope ('for a profile'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like scoring-rule-delete and scoring-rule-upsert. It is specific and unambiguous.

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 implies the use case: when you need to retrieve scoring rules associated with a specific profile. It provides clear context but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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