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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so repeating 'read-only' earns little. The description does add value beyond them by disclosing cost ('Free'), the absence of parameters, and what the returned rubric contains, though it omits the output format.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, then safety/cost, then call conditions. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description carries the burden and does list the rubric components an agent will receive. It stops short of describing the return shape or formatting, a minor gap for a pure lookup tool.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description confirms this explicitly ('no parameters'), which is the only parameter-level information an agent needs here.

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?

Specific verb and resource: 'Return the exact rubric behind contract_risk_summary scores', with the content enumerated (points per flag, level thresholds, flag meanings). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling contract_risk_summary, which produces scores rather than explaining them.

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?

Gives two concrete call conditions: explaining a score to a user, or deciding your own threshold before acting on a report. It states the tool is free, read-only and parameterless, but never says when not to call it or explicitly routes away from a sibling.

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