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

With no annotations, the description correctly carries the burden. It discloses that the scorecard includes every graded session, retains misses, and quotes the grading methodology verbatim. The warning that 'percentages mean nothing without it' is a valuable caveat about how the returned numbers must be interpreted. The description does not state side effects or read-only status, but this is naturally read-only in nature.

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 extremely efficient, using three sentences and one URL to deliver both the core purpose and a necessary usage warning. Each sentence earns its place: the first defines the resource, the second covers data retention, the third provides the caveat that must accompany any data usage. No redundant content.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations. The description conveys enough to understand what is returned, the type of data, and an important usage constraint. It does not explicitly describe the output format (e.g., per symbol metrics) but the absence is relatively minor because the domain is narrow and the pattern 'scorecard' is well understood. The URL provides further reference.

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 schema covers 100% of the parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not elaborate on the 'sessions' parameter, but the schema already provides all required information: range 0-40 and default 10. The description does not need to compensate.

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 names the resource as 'the public scorecard' and specifies that it covers 'every graded session since publishing began, per symbol.' It also differentiates itself from sibling tools by emphasizing 'graded' and 'public' rather than desk operations, sessions, or today's levels. The title reinforces the purpose, so an agent can tell this apart without opening the schema.

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?

There is no explicit 'use this when' or comparison to sibling tools. The only usage instruction is to quote the grading methodology alongside any number from here, which is about output formatting rather than tool selection. The purpose statement implies the tool is for public graded record, but it lacks a clear when-not-to-use guidance.

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