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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the artifact is 'signed,' it reflects exactly one simulated run, and it explicitly is not a safety certification — meaningful framing that shapes how the agent interprets the result.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the verb+resource and key, followed immediately by the scope caveat. No filler, no restatement of the title.

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 single-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values, and annotations already carry the safety profile. What remains missing is error/precondition behavior (e.g., what happens if the run is not completed) and where a runId comes from — small but real gaps.

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 0%, so the single runId parameter is undocumented in structured data. The description identifies runId as the lookup key for a completed ride's run, which is more than the schema offers, but it gives no format, length, or sourcing guidance (e.g., where runId comes from), so the gap is only partially closed.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Retrieve the signed scorecard') plus the lookup key ('by runId'), and adds a scope disclaimer ('reports this one simulated run and is not a safety certification') that no sibling tool covers. 'Scorecard' is a unique resource among act_in_ride/list_rides/start_ride, so an agent can distinguish it 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?

The phrase 'for a completed MCP ride' implies the precondition (a run that has finished) and the certification disclaimer implies when not to rely on the result. However, it never names an alternative tool or states explicitly when to call this versus inspecting a ride some other way; the guidance is implied rather than stated.

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