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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it returns 'inferred weights and the discovery-walk trace' and explicitly states it does not rank models, providing extra behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 two sentences, with the main verb and scope front-loaded in the first sentence. Every word contributes: it states the function, the explicit non-ranking constraint, the return value, and the use case, with no filler.

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?

Given a single required parameter, a high-coverage schema, a present output schema, and detailed annotations that cover side effects, the description fully covers the tool's purpose and context. It explains what the tool does, what it returns, and when to use it (before a pick), making it complete for an AI agent.

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 description for the 'purpose' parameter is thorough, explaining what the tool does with the input. The tool description itself does not add much beyond the schema because the schema already contains nearly identical explanatory text, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Show') and defines the tool's resource ('quality dimensions' for a stated purpose). It explicitly contrasts itself with ranking tools ('WITHOUT ranking any models'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like rank and pick.

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 states it is useful before committing to a pick, implying the intended use case. It also clarifies that it does not perform ranking, which differentiates it from alternatives, though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling tools or say when not to use each.

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