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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the score is 'persisted' (read-only, not recalculated) and lists the response contents, plus the cost. However, it does not mention error behavior, authentication needs, or side effects—though as a read operation this is less critical.

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 that conveys the action, object, included details, and cost. Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the main output components and cost. However, it lacks parameter guidance, differentiation from similar sibling tools, and any mention of expected input state or prerequisites, leaving it just minimally viable.

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 only parameter, assessmentId, is not described in the schema or the description. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate by explicitly stating that assessmentId is used to fetch the score. Instead, the description implies an ID without naming it, leaving a gap for parameter understanding.

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 the specific verb 'Retrieve' with the resource 'persisted seven-axis score' and lists included details (input coverage, weakest-axis gaps, next action, provenance). It is clear and distinct from general tools like get_node_score, though it does not explicitly contrast with siblings.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_node_score or get_eta_i_metric. The inclusion of cost per call is a practical note but does not help in selecting among sibling tools. Context like required assessment state is absent.

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