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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the observation that the same content is also served as MCP resources, but that is an access detail rather than a behavior; there is no additional behavioral disclosure needed for a read-only knowledge fetch.

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 sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded and a usage directive immediately following. The resource reference is extra but useful. No wasted words.

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-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, this description is complete. It tells the agent what content is available, when to use it, and even where the same data lives in MCP resources. No critical detail for correct invocation is missing.

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 coverage is 100%: the topic parameter has a clear description with all enum values explained. The tool description restates the topics (scoring, categories, glossary) but does not add meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Read GVT reference knowledge', then lists the exact content areas (scoring, score bands and category weights, analysis categories, GEO glossary). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like gvt_get_test_results or gvt_get_score_trend, which retrieve test data rather than reference knowledge.

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 explicitly says to use it 'to interpret test results and scores correctly instead of guessing', giving a clear context. It does not name alternative tools, but no sibling is a near-duplicate; the MCP resource note is a bonus alternative, not a competing tool.

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