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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-structured context: the scorecard is signed, it covers exactly one simulated run, and it explicitly is not a safety certification. It does not mention error behavior for non-completed or unknown runIds.

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 sentences, no filler, and the core action leads ahead of the scope caveat. Every clause (signed, completed run, single simulated run, not a certification) carries distinct meaning.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and a single required parameter keeps the surface small. The definition is nearly complete; the only gap is behavior on invalid, unknown, or incomplete runIds.

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 description carries the burden for runId. It supplies only "by runId" plus the implicit constraint that the run must be completed, which is a partial compensation but gives no format, length, or origin guidance for the identifier.

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 (Retrieve), a specific resource (the signed scorecard), and the scoping key (by runId for a completed MCP run). An agent knows exactly what it gets back and under what condition. The sibling tools (act_in_ride, list_rides, start_ride) are from an unrelated domain, so no differentiation is needed.

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?

"for a completed MCP run" establishes the precondition for calling it, and "is not a safety certification" heads off a plausible misuse. However, it names no alternative tool or fallback for cases such as an incomplete run or a missing scorecard, so it stops short of full when/when-not/alternatives guidance.

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