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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds the content scope (core 60 plus 40 per each of five jobs) which is useful context, but says nothing about size, ordering, or whether the result is flat or grouped per job.

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?

A single sentence with a colon-delimited enumeration; the key split of 60 core versus 40 per job is front-loaded. Slightly awkward phrasing in 'with its points and fix', but nothing extraneous.

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 zero-parameter reference read with no output schema, the description covers what the content is but not its return shape, grouping, or approximate volume, which an agent needs to know before dumping a large static document into context.

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?

There are zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The job names in the description are content values, not inputs, so no parameter meaning is lost.

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 the concrete contents: every check in the AgentsReady score with its points and fix, broken into 60 core points plus 40 points per job, with the five job names spelled out. That is a specific resource, though it is a noun phrase rather than a verb and it does not distinguish itself from siblings like get_checklist or get_fixes, whose names suggest overlapping content.

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?

Use is only implied: an agent can infer this is the reference lookup for how scoring works, but there is no explicit 'use this when...' statement, no prerequisites, and no pointer to get_checklist or get_fixes as the alternative for listing items versus explaining points.

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