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

Annotations already declare readOnly, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds meaningful context by disclosing the exact return contents — every claim, verdict, evidence quote, source surface, and CLI/API command + exit_code + duration — plus the schema version. It omits auth requirements, rate limits, and pagination, but for a read-only fetch this is a strong disclosure 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and resource, then return contents, then use case. Every clause carries information and nothing is redundant.

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 tool is simple (one required param, no output schema), and the description compensates for the missing output schema by summarizing the returned fields. It lacks guidance on authentication or failure modes, but for a read-only scorecard fetch the description is nearly complete.

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?

With schema description coverage at 100% and only one required parameter, the schema already fully documents the slug. The description adds no syntax, format, or lookup guidance beyond what the schema provides, 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 ('Fetch') and resource ('claim-vs-evidence scorecard') scoped to 'one Hlido-reviewed agent,' making the purpose immediately clear. It does not name or distinguish itself from close siblings such as trust_check or verify_claim, so it earns a 4 rather than 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?

The final sentence gives a use case — 'agent-to-agent pre-flight evaluation' — which implies when to reach for this tool. However, it offers no when-not guidance and never contrasts itself with overlapping siblings like trust_check or verify_transparency, leaving the agent to infer the distinction.

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