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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it returns the most recent cycle, includes every analyzer observation, and explicitly returns null if the identity has not been scored yet. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences with no filler. The core action and return contents are front-loaded, the purpose is stated in the middle, and the null-return edge case is a compact final sentence. Every sentence earns its place.

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-only tool, the description covers what is returned, the scope ('most recent analysis cycle'), the purpose, and the not-scored edge case. No output schema exists, but the description sufficiently explains the return value shape and intent.

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 schema has 100% coverage, documenting 'id' as 'Tracked identity id.' The description references 'an identity' but does not add further semantic detail about the parameter itself beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter meaning.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch the most recent analysis cycle for an identity' and details the returned contents. It positions itself as the 'primary tool for judging whether the analyzers are reasoning correctly,' which helps differentiate it from other get_* tools, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 description clearly indicates when to use the tool: when you need the detailed observations behind an identity's analysis, with the note that 'the score is the summary, the observations are the evidence.' It provides clear context for selection but does not state exclusions or when a sibling tool would be preferable.

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