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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add useful context by stating that locked previews never consume credit and including the cost per call ($0.10/call). However, it omits other behavioral traits such as whether the tool is read-only, any authentication requirements, or what happens if the roadmaps are fully locked. The added cost/credit disclosure earns a middling score.

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 appropriately sized for a simple read tool: two sentences, front-loaded with the main action. The second sentence adds a cost/credit nuance without unnecessary fluff. Every word 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?

Given the low complexity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is minimally viable, but it lacks key details expected from a tool: no explanation of the response structure, no parameter guidance, and no usage context. The cost disclosure adds some value, but overall the description is too sparse to fully equip an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 one required parameter, assessmentId, with no description (0% coverage). The tool description does not mention this parameter at all, so it fails to compensate for the gap. The parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, but the description does not clarify its format, origin, or relationship to the roadmap.

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 ('Retrieve') and a specific resource ('the full unlocked Energy Node roadmap'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_energy_node_score or get_node_score. The phrase 'full unlocked' adds precise scope, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only mentions 'Locked previews never consume credit,' which is a behavioral note, not a usage guideline. There is no explicit context, prerequisites, or mention of related tools.

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