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

With no annotations present, the description carries the transparency burden. It explicitly says 'No network call,' signaling a local, read-only reference operation, and the verb 'List' reinforces that no mutation occurs. It does not detail output formatting, but this is minor for a zero-parameter reference tool.

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?

Two tight, information-dense sentences. The first states exactly what the tool returns; the second gives the use case and a cost/behavior cue. Every word earns its place.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema reference tool, the description is complete: it identifies the returned content, the intended use, and the fact that no network call occurs. Nothing critical is missing for correct selection and invocation.

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 has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, which is the baseline 4 case. No parameter explanation is needed because there are no parameters to clarify.

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 states a specific verb ('List'), a precise resource ('five scoring pillars with statutes and weights and the band rules'), and explicitly ties it to precheck_score for explaining scores. This clearly differentiates it from the scoring tool itself and other siblings.

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?

It gives a clear trigger condition: 'Use this to explain a score to the user.' It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion criteria, but the reference-only role is evident from the phrasing and the 'No network call' note.

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