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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by detailing the methodology content and its intended role as a reference, without contradicting the annotations.

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 sentences: the first densely lists the components of the methodology, and the second gives a direct usage directive. Both sentences earn their place with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the simple no-parameter read-only tool and the presence of an output schema, the description fully covers the tool's purpose, content, and usage timing. Nothing essential 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?

With zero parameters, the schema trivially covers 100% of parameters. The description appropriately focuses on the tool's output/content rather than inputs, which is the baseline expectation for no-parameter tools.

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 specifies the tool provides 'exact weights, thresholds, eligibility rules, data sources, and stated limitations behind every score.' This is specific and distinctive, especially when compared to sibling tools like get_score_breakdown or get_rankings, which focus on individual results rather than the underlying methodology.

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 instruction to 'Read this before characterising what a TRP Score means' gives clear context for when to use the tool first. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, falling just short of the highest bar.

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