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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context by specifying the aggregation scope (career totals, date range, promotions worked) and the relationship to list_judges rows, which is useful beyond 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?

The description is a single dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose, enumerates the data points, and ends with the sibling routing. Every clause earns its place with no 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?

For a single-parameter read-only tool with full schema coverage and clear sibling routing, the description is complete. The output shape is clarified by the list_judges row reference, and the alternative tool is named for the detailed cards.

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 the schema already describes judge_id as 'Judge id, from list_judges. Integer or numeric string.' The description reinforces the source of the id by mentioning list_judges, which adds a small amount of context beyond the 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 states a specific verb ('aggregates') and resource ('one official's career') and enumerates the exact data points returned. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_judge_scorecards by explicitly saying to use that tool for the cards themselves.

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 explicitly says 'use get_judge_scorecards for the cards themselves,' which is a clear when-not-to-use and alternative routing. It also notes the output shape matches list_judges rows, giving the agent a clear expectation of the result format.

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