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

The readOnlyHint already establishes that this is a safe read operation, so the description appropriately focuses on domain behavior. It adds useful context by defining the 0-39/40-69/70-100 score bands and the 'learning' state until the 30-run baseline freezes, which an agent could not infer from annotations alone.

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 a single compact sentence with the primary subject front-loaded and no wasted wording. Score thresholds and learning-state semantics are packed efficiently into the same sentence.

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, single-optional-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety, the description supplies the essential domain semantics: score ranges, status meaning, and per-agent scope. It could go slightly further in describing the exact return structure, but it is complete enough for correct invocation.

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%, and the schema itself explains that the key can be omitted when sent as an x-kyde-key header. The description mentions 'under the key' but adds no syntax or format details beyond the schema, so the 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 clearly states that it returns current drift scores per agent under a key, and it explains the score bands and learning status. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling key-management tools, but the resource and scope are specific enough for an agent to understand what it does.

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 explains how to interpret returned scores but gives no explicit guidance on when to call this tool, when not to, or how it relates to alternatives. Usage is only implied by the resource being a drift score read.

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