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

The description adds meaningful behavior beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: verdict values, the meaning and prevalence of cant_tell, refusal vocabulary, and the explicit warning that no assistant score exists or can be derived. This materially helps an agent avoid misusing the output.

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 fairly compact but stylized: phrases like 'Each reads kept, broken or cant_tell' and 'in the promise vocabulary and refused for the same named reasons' are grammatically awkward and opaque. A more direct 'Returns...' structure would be clearer without adding length.

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 no-parameter, read-only tool without an output schema, the description covers what is included, what the reported values mean, and a key limitation about scores. Some domain jargon like 'promise vocabulary' is left unexplained, which prevents a perfect 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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so there is no parameter-level semantic burden on the description. The baseline for a parameterless tool is 4, and the description adds contextual meaning without needing to document arguments.

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 conveys that the tool reports outcomes for AI-related changes that passed through Boosthis, classified as kept, broken, or cant_tell. It is clear about the resource and result categories, though it lacks a direct action verb and does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling list/report tools.

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?

It gives inclusion scope ('only those that passed through it') and a strong exclusion ('No score for any assistant, and none derivable'), so an agent can infer when it is relevant and when it is not. However, it never names alternatives or explicitly says 'use this when...'.

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