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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the three-value scoring scheme (yes/partial/no) and the fact that every cell is backed by a source document, which tells the agent what the response contains.

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 filler, front-loading the resource and its scoring scope before the parameter hints. The first sentence is dense but every clause identifies a distinct scored dimension, so little is wasted.

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 carries the burden of describing returns and does so adequately: a per-OEM yes/partial/no score with a backing document per cell. It omits pagination and how the OEM list is enumerated, but nothing essential to invoking it correctly 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% and both parameters are already documented there, including the default false for cells. The description's phrasing 'evidence rows' adds only slight nuance over the schema's 'evidence cells', so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('get_disclosure_scorecard') and enumerates the exact disclosure dimensions being scored (dated lead-time schedule, list prices, backlog, capacity, delivery performance), which distinguishes it from data-returning siblings like get_lead_times and get_price_bands. An agent can tell this reports publication/disclosure status rather than the underlying numbers.

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 drive the tool ('Optional filter by OEM; set cells=true for the evidence rows') but never states when to choose it over alternatives such as get_lead_times or get_price_bands. Usage is implied by the resource rather than stated.

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