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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds useful behavioral constraints: a complete 30-answer set is required and option numbers come from get_index_questions. It also explains what the tool returns, going beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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, front-loaded with the purpose and followed immediately by the key precondition. Every sentence earns its place; no filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

The description lists all main return values and the required input format, which is sufficient for a read-only tool with rich schema coverage. There is no output schema to rely on, so listing outputs helps; minor gaps like error behavior are not critical here.

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 input schema covers the answers array thoroughly (100% coverage), and the description adds meaning by clarifying that exactly one answer per question is expected and that option numbers are tied to get_index_questions. This links the parameter to a sibling tool, which is valuable 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 ('Scores'), a precise resource ('a complete set of 30 answers'), and the exact outputs (index 0–100, tier, per-dimension scores, strengths, and holding-back signals). This clearly separates it from siblings like get_index_questions, which only returns questions, and email_index_report, which sends a report.

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 clear usage context: the caller must supply exactly one answer per question and use option numbers from get_index_questions. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, so it stops short of a 5, but the requirements are unambiguous.

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