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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description's additional behavioral details—'newest first' ordering and the restriction to commission records—add useful context beyond the schema. It does not discuss pagination behavior or auth, but given the annotations carry the safety profile, this is adequate.

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 well-ordered sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then lists the output fields. Every clause earns its place and there is no redundant restating of the title.

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 tool with no output schema and only partial parameter descriptions, the description covers the return content and ordering reasonably well. However, it omits how cursor-based pagination works and does not clarify the relationship between limit and cursor, leaving an agent to infer pagination from the schema alone.

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 only 33%, with only judge_id documented. The description adds little to parameter meaning: it confirms the tool is for one judge but provides no explanation of limit or cursor semantics, which are the pagination controls an agent would need to invoke correctly.

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 identifies a specific resource—official scorecards turned in by one judge—and specifies the contained fields (per-round points, card totals, decision type, point deductions). It also adds a scoping qualifier ('Commission records only') that helps distinguish it from other listing tools among the siblings.

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 gives no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_event_card or list_judges. It implies the usage through the resource description but does not state when to prefer it or what conditions make it the right choice.

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