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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true. The description goes beyond by stating it NEVER writes ratings, reports post-hoc, and that using it as a ranking algorithm returns 400. It also discloses the api_key endpoint nuance. No contradiction with annotations; substantial added behavioral context.

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 appropriately sized with front-loaded 'OFFLINE AUDIT ONLY'. Each sentence adds value: purpose, constraints, algorithm background, and API key note. It's slightly dense but not wasteful.

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?

Covers the tool's role, safety profile, and endpoint specifics. It lacks explicit parameter documentation and clear comparison with CrowdBT, but the output schema exists, so return value is covered. For a complex algorithm tool, it's moderately complete but leaves parameter understanding to the 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only explains api_key optionality (though that's also in schema), but does not explain max_iterations or min_appearances_per_entity. The algorithm context hints at their meaning but doesn't provide explicit semantics. Given the low coverage, this is a significant gap.

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?

States a specific purpose: Plackett-Luce listwise ranking aggregation, and explicitly frames it as an offline audit tool. It differentiates from siblings by noting it's one of two offline aggregators (with CrowdBT) and not a rating engine. The verb 'get' plus resource is clear.

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?

Clearly indicates when to use: as a second-opinion aggregator for audit purposes, and when not: setting it as a ranking's algorithm returns 400. It also distinguishes between public and /mcp/mcp endpoints for api_key. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with CrowdBT or other aggregators in terms of selection criteria.

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