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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavioral context: grades describe the pinned commit only, and a newer-commit re-grade must be requested via an issue on the marketplace repo. It stops short of noting caching, auth, or rate-limit behavior.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and target, then the returned contents, then the commit-pinning caveat. Two sentences, no filler; the return-value enumeration is slightly redundant given an output schema exists, but it is compact and informative.

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 single-parameter read tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything needed: what is returned, the exact scope of validity (pinned commit), and the escalation path for a re-grade. Nothing an agent needs in order to call 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% for the single id parameter, which already documents the format and the list_scorecards discovery path. The description only restates 'by its id' and adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, 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 (get) and resource (the full scorecard for one graded MCP server), scoped to a single id. It further enumerates exactly what the scorecard contains (overall grade, per-axis results with evidence, hardening notes, rubric version, graded commit), which distinguishes it clearly from list_scorecards.

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?

Usage is implied by 'for one graded MCP server by its id' (singular, id-based) versus the sibling list_scorecards, and the description adds a workflow note about requesting a re-grade via an issue. However, it never explicitly names the alternative tool or states when not to use this one; the id-discovery hint lives in the schema, not the description.

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