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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description usefully adds that VIP access is required and that scope is limited to a bounded published range. It does not define what 'bounded published scope' means in practice or clarify whether empty score buckets are included.

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 tight sentences with no wasted language. The aggregate return is stated first, and the status/scope/VIP constraints follow immediately.

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 five-parameter read tool with no output schema and no schema descriptions, the definition covers the aggregate return and VIP prerequisite but underspecifies optional scope parameters. It is callable for the required status case, but an agent cannot confidently use the optional filters.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It mentions 'status' and a 'bounded published scope' but leaves visa, month, state, and occupation unexplained, including their expected formats and filtering behavior.

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 and resource: returns aggregate counts by SkillSelect score, scoped to one status and a bounded published scope. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_score_position or get_eoi_snapshot, though it does not explicitly name the contrast.

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?

Provides a key prerequisite ('VIP required') and scope constraint, but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this instead of adjacent tools such as get_score_position or get_latest_overview. Usage is implied rather than fully directed.

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