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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds genuine behavioral context: it pre-empts confusion about the widespread "not scored" state and warns that a score is not a safety guarantee — framing an agent cannot get from structured fields.

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 tight sentences: the first enumerates what the explanation covers, the second delivers the key caveat. Front-loaded and 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?

With an output schema present and no parameters, the description need not document return values, and it appropriately limits itself to signaling scope and the caveat. It is essentially complete, with only the missing explicit usage trigger as a minor gap.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies a single static explanation with nothing to configure, consistent with an empty input 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 names the specific content the tool returns — dimensions, weights, caps, and the rationale behind "not scored" pools — which is far more than restating the title. It is clearly a documentation/explanation tool, distinguishable from the pool-data siblings by subject matter, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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: an agent should call this when it needs to interpret the scoring rubric or understand why a pool is unscored. There is no explicit when-to-use trigger, no stated relationship to siblings like get_pool or compare_pools, and no exclusions.

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