DealScore

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 fully covered. The description adds only an endpoint alias ('Same as POST /api/explain') and nothing about what the grade means, what the response contains, or any limits.

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 core purpose and no filler. The endpoint reference is useful shorthand, though jargon like 'score_v2' and 'delta_pct' is used without unpacking.

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 simple single-parameter read tool the annotations cover safety, but the description never explains what a 'score_v2 rubric grade' is or what the caller should pass as delta_pct, and no output schema exists to offload return-value detail. It is thin given the undefined parameter.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it merely repeats the parameter name 'delta_pct' without defining units, valid range, or what the delta is measured against. The lone number parameter is effectively undefined.

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 (explain) and resource (score_v2 rubric grade for a delta_pct), which is far beyond restating the name. However it gives no explicit differentiation from the sibling score_deal, leaving the agent to infer that this explains a grade while score_deal computes one.

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?

There is no indication of when to call this vs. score_deal, no prerequisites, and no relationship described (e.g., 'call after score_deal'). Usage is only implied by the tool name.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that — no note on polling frequency, auth requirements, rate limits, or whether the response shape is stable. It 'mentions' limitations but does not disclose any.

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 no padding. The endpoint-equivalence note is genuinely useful. Minor deduction because the enumerated noun list ('coverage, cache policy, and limitations') is a grab bag that adds words without adding precision.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool the definition is nearly complete, but with no output schema the agent gets no signal about what the health response actually contains, and the vague noun list ('coverage, cache policy') hints at fields without describing them.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the baseline rule a 4 applies. There is nothing for the description to compensate for.

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 is a noun list ('service health, coverage, cache policy, and limitations') without an explicit verb, so the agent must infer that this is a health-check/diagnostics read. Referencing 'Same as GET /api/health' anchors it for an API-aware agent, but the enumerated nouns (coverage? cache policy?) muddy rather than sharpen the purpose.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool or when not to. The siblings (explain_grade, score_deal) are unrelated, so no routing is needed, but there is still zero guidance on context of use.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-destructive open-world call. The description adds only 'Same inputs/outputs as POST /api/score,' which hints at the backing endpoint but discloses nothing about latency, auth, rate limits, or what the grading actually returns. No contradiction, but minimal added value.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the core action leads. The 'Same inputs/outputs as POST /api/score' clause is terse but of ambiguous value to an agent that cannot see that endpoint.

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 an 8-parameter tool with no output schema and 0% parameter documentation, the description is far too thin. It neither describes the resulting grade (the tool's entire value) nor explains how the vehicle-identity parameters combine, leaving the agent to guess at call shape and result meaning.

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% across 8 parameters, so the description must carry the explanatory burden. It only clarifies that zip is optional (consistent with the schema's required list) and adds nothing about vin, make, model, trim, year, mileage, or asking_price, nor about how identity fields (vin vs. make/model/year/trim) interact or which combination is needed.

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+resource: 'Grade a car deal' with the mechanism 'compare asking price to expected market value.' An agent understands the operation immediately. It stops short of distinguishing itself from the sibling explain_grade, which is presumably the explanation counterpart to this scoring action.

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 only guidance is 'ZIP is optional,' which is a parameter note rather than a use case. There is no statement of when to call this versus explain_grade, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. Usage context is only implied by the verb 'Grade.'

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