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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful content context — that the response carries four rating dimensions and coaching recommendations — though it omits whether the score is cached or computed on demand, which matters given the sibling refresh tool.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the usage trigger, then return contents, then the filter hint. Efficient overall; only the final 'Pass category to get a single category' sentence is mildly redundant given the schema.

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 output schema, the description is right to name the returned rating dimensions and recommendations, and the single optional enum parameter is fully covered by the schema. The only missing piece is the read-vs-refresh relationship with suppco_refresh_stack_score.

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 enum values are documented in the schema itself. The line 'Pass category to get a single category' simply restates the schema with no added syntax, defaults, or interaction detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource ('returns the signed-in user's StackScore') and enumerates exactly what the score comprises (Quality, Value, Goals, Dosage ratings plus coaching recommendations). This cleanly separates it from siblings like suppco_get_my_stack or suppco_refresh_stack_score.

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 a concrete trigger: 'Use this when the user asks how good their supplement stack is or how to improve it.' That is clear context, but it never mentions the adjacent suppco_refresh_stack_score, so the agent gets no guidance on when to read a score versus trigger a recomputation.

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