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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds behavioral context about output size ('<200 tokens') and efficiency ('without burning agent context'), which is useful beyond the annotations. It does not contradict annotations, and the additional info is relevant and accurate.

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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action and characteristic, then provides a use case. It contains no fluff or redundant information, making it highly concise and effective.

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 simple one-parameter tool with a complete input schema, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description fully covers what an agent needs to decide to use it and call it correctly. The token budget and use-case hints add necessary context without gaps.

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 schema already fully describes the only parameter (target) with 100% coverage. The description adds no extra meaning about the parameter (e.g., format, validation, examples) beyond what the schema provides. Since coverage is high, baseline 3 is appropriate; the description doesn't need to compensate.

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 clearly states the tool fetches an 'ARS 3.0 score card' with a specific verb and resource, and adds the key characteristic of being 'ultra-compact' (<200 tokens). It does not explicitly name or contrast with sibling tools like glintbase_audit, but the purpose is specific and unambiguous, so it earns a 4 rather than 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?

The description gives explicit use contexts: 'Ideal for quick checks and CI status monitoring without burning agent context.' This tells the agent when to use it, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. Still, the guidance is clear and actionable, warranting a 4.

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