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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered without help from the description. The description adds useful content scope by listing exactly which scoring elements are explained, but gives no sense of output form or length for what is effectively a documentation lookup.

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 front-loaded sentence with the subject stated first and the enumerated contents following. No filler and nothing that could be trimmed without losing information.

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 no-parameter explainer with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it tells the agent what subject matter the response covers. It only lacks framing about when consulting the methodology is the right move versus reading the report directly.

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 and 100% schema coverage, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies.

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 a specific subject: the scoring methodology that converts findings into scores, and enumerates its parts (categories, weights, severity, confidence, codebase size). An agent can tell this is the explainer for the score rather than the score data itself, though it never explicitly contrasts with get_report or rank_fixes.

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 only implied: an agent infers it should call this when it needs to interpret or explain a score. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and no pointer to the siblings that return actual findings or rankings.

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