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

Annotations only cover readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description adds substantial behavior: 'Levels never go down', which records earn XP versus which do not (check-in vs RSVP, verified vs claimed quest, published log vs draft, the membership ring earns nothing), the 50/week GitHub cap, and that each source carries a `how` field for advising a human. This is real context beyond the structured data.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and the enumerations are informative rather than filler, but the 'No auth required' statement is repeated verbatim at the start and end, and the XP-source list is long enough to be a mild drag. Slightly tighter editing would help.

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 and no parameters, the description carries the burden well: it names the return shape ({ ok, version, xp_sources[...], levels[...], rules[] }) and explains what each piece contains. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description confirms 'Args: {}' and even sketches the return payload, which is more than the empty schema provides, but there is no parameter meaning to add.

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 resource and scope: the level rules table — every XP source with rate/cap plus the 10-level curve. It explicitly contrasts itself with ic_funko_progress ('nobody's progress'), so an agent can distinguish it from the sibling that reports one member's level.

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?

It states when to use this tool (you want the rules/curve) and names the alternative for the other case ('for one member's level call ic_funko_progress'). No auth requirement is also called out, removing a common source of hesitation.

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