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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the operation re-scores and yields "a new scored run," but does not explain whether the original run is modified, whether effects are re-evaluated, permissions, idempotency, or side effects.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, but it is too terse for a tool with a nested object and eleven nested properties. The parenthetical outcome is useful but the overall structure is under-specified.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage for a nested two-parameter tool, the description is not complete enough for reliable invocation. It conveys purpose and trigger, but leaves parameter meanings and key behavioral details unspecified.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the required incident_id parameter or the nested view object with fields such as run_id, deadline_min, counterparties, effects_landed, and checkpoint_integrity. It only vaguely references a "run" and therefore fails to compensate for the undocumented schema.

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 gives a specific verb ("Re-score") and resource ("run") plus a triggering condition ("state/resource change") and outcome ("a new scored run"). It implicitly contrasts with the sibling score_run by saying this is a re-score, but it does not explicitly name or differentiate that sibling.

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 phrase "on state/resource change" gives an implied usage condition, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this instead of score_run, when not to use it, or what prerequisites must be met. The guidance is present only by inference.

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