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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real context beyond them: governance is capped by recorded evidence, the manual route is also scored, and the return is a decision with reasons and a preference order.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence led by the verb, with each clause (three scores, governance cap, manual route, return shape) earning its place. It is dense but not padded.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains the return (decision, reasons, preference order), which is the key gap it needed to fill. With 8 params, nested objects, and 88% schema coverage, the remaining omission is workflow prerequisites, which the sibling set largely implies.

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 88%, so the schema already documents the parameters (record, option_name, adoption/efficiency/governance, conditions, outstanding). The description names the three score axes but adds no syntax, format, or enum semantics beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 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?

The description states a specific verb (Scores) and resource (the AI option) across three named axes, notes its workflow position (step 2), and discloses that it also scores the manual route and returns the decision. It is clear what the tool does, though it never names or contrasts with a sibling tool to disambiguate.

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?

"(step 2)" is a real but thin signal that this runs after a preceding workflow step, and the mention of scoring the manual route implies it belongs in a comparison/decision stage. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no alternatives are named.

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