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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses an edge case (matched_agent=false makes the score vacuous), but omits other traits such as whether it is read-only, auth requirements, or cost/rate behavior, leaving meaningful gaps.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose then usage then a caveat, with little waste. The final clause is dense and references matched_agent without establishing it as a return field, slightly hurting readability.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description only partly compensates by flagging the matched_agent field. The score's scale/range, other return fields, and the surrounding context of the fidelity metric are left undefined.

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 description coverage is 100% and the schema already documents the single agent_key parameter, setting the baseline at 3. The phrase "for an agent or Safe" hints the key may accept either address type beyond the schema's "Agent EOA address", but it is vague and not an explicit parameter clarification.

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 resource and computation ("Intent↔execution fidelity score for an agent or Safe"), so an agent knows exactly what is being returned. It does not, however, distinguish itself from sibling metric tools like get_benchmark or get_tca, which are also read-only scores.

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 for accountability / coverage meter" gives implied usage context, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance and no alternative sibling is named. The agent must infer selection from the purpose statement alone.

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