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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description reinforces that with 'Read-only'. It adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations, including the requirement for the aeo section, the weekly/on-request scan cadence, and the conformance standard version.

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 compact and front-loaded, stating the core purpose in the first sentence. It then efficiently lists the key output components and closes with the scope requirement and read-only cadence; 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?

With no output schema, the description responsibly explains what the tool returns: score, grade, layer breakdown, ranked fix list, and conformance reading. Combined with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the description gives an agent enough to invoke the tool correctly and understand its result.

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 input schema already documents all three parameters with complete descriptions, including the engine enum, target domain filter, and history count. The tool description adds little beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the semantic weight.

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 clearly identifies a specific resource: the latest Fractional Teams agent-readiness scan per client domain, and lists the major result components. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from the very similarly named sibling get_agent_readiness_scan, so an agent may not know which one to pick.

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 provides clear contextual guidance: it requires the aeo section in scope, and it is read-only with a defined update cadence. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like get_agent_readiness_scan or get_report, but it gives enough context for reasonable use.

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