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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly/idempotent/openWorld), the description discloses score band boundaries, the gate mechanism and its floor of 50, per-docket authority status with mc, the PASS/REVIEW/FAIL verdict with verdict_reasons, receipt_id, and a cost of 1 lookup. That is unusually rich behavioral disclosure for a read-only tool.

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?

Purpose and lookup keys are front-loaded, and the dense middle (bands, gates, verdict) is all information an agent needs. It is a single long run-on paragraph, and the sourcing constraints and cost note could be separated for scannability.

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 2-param read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers return shape (score, reason codes, gates, verdict, verdict_reasons, receipt_id), edge behavior with mc, and cost. An agent can call this correctly and interpret the result without further information.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds a constraint the schema does not enforce: "Pass exactly one of dot or mc" rules out passing both or neither, which the schema (additionalProperties: false, no oneOf) permits. The mc-specific note about authority status being that docket's own is also genuine added meaning.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Get a 0-100 risk score for a carrier") plus the lookup keys, which clearly separates it from lookup_carrier or search_carriers by output type. It never names a sibling or explicitly says how it differs from a plain carrier lookup, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

"Informational signal for human review, not a safety rating" and "Pass exactly one of dot or mc" give real invocation context, but there is no explicit when-to-use-versus-alternative guidance and no mention of when a plain lookup would be preferable. Usage is implied by the output type rather than stated.

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