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

The description states that for scope 'spec' it 'recalculates that spec's score on the spot — that writes a new snapshot and may raise alerts', which directly contradicts the readOnlyHint=true annotation. This is a serious inconsistency.

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 moderately concise, using two sentences plus an explanatory clause. It conveys all necessary guidance without unnecessary verbosity, though it could be slightly tighter.

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 covers the tool's purpose, the two scopes, the side-effect for spec scope, and the alternative tool. It does not include an output schema, but the behavioral notes and usage guidance are sufficient for correct invocation.

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 covers both parameters with defaults and descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds that specId is required for scope 'spec' and notes the project context requirement, providing extra semantic value 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 clearly states 'Get the quality score' with a specific resource, though 'quality score' could be interpreted as different from 'governance score'. It distinguishes between org and spec scopes, providing sufficient clarity.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative tool 'get_governance_config' for thresholds and weights, and states the condition for using 'spec' scope requiring project context. This leaves no ambiguity about when to use this tool.

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