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

With no annotations to describe side effects, mutability, or authorization, the description carries a heavy burden but reveals almost nothing about behavior. It does not say whether the tool is read-only, whether it requires existing profiles, what the score means, how it is calculated, or what output format to expect.

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 a single sentence with no filler or redundant wording, and the main action is front-loaded. It earns high marks for conciseness, though the brevity comes at the cost of behavioral and parameter detail.

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?

For a tool with no output schema, no annotations, and zero parameter descriptions, the overall definition is incomplete. An agent cannot determine how to construct person_a/person_b correctly, what type of value will be returned, or how to interpret the result, making correct invocation uncertain.

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%, and the description fails to explain person_a or person_b beyond 'two people,' leaving ambiguity about whether they are names, IDs, or profile references. The context parameter gains some meaning from the four listed contexts, but the required parameters remain semantically under-specified.

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, 'Score', with a clear resource, 'two people', and enumerates the intended relationship contexts: business, romantic, friendship, or co-parenting. This makes the tool's core purpose immediately understandable and distinguishes it from the sibling profile/relationship-management tools.

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 implies when to use the tool by listing relevant relationship contexts, but it does not explicitly compare this tool with alternatives or state when not to use it. There is no mention of sibling tools such as list_profiles or list_relationships, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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