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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds value by disclosing the output behavior: per-item pass/fail/not observable with evidence and a coaching note. It does not contradict the annotations; openWorldHint is vague but not contradicted. The description provides useful behavioral detail beyond the annotations, warranting a 4.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and then specifies the output details. No redundant phrasing or filler. Every word contributes to clarity.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It specifies the input type, size limit, and the exact nature of the output (per-item scoring with evidence and coaching note). An agent has enough to call it correctly without additional context.

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 coverage is 100% – the parameter 'transcript' is described as 'Transcript, notes or a summary of one call, up to 6,000 characters'. The description reinforces the input type and adds the constraint that it must be for 'one call', which the schema does not explicitly state. This goes slightly beyond the schema, so a 4 is justified.

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 ('scores'), a clear resource ('sales call transcript, notes or summary'), and the exact scoring standard ('eighteen-item sales call scorecard'), plus the output granularity (pass/fail/not observable per item with evidence and coaching note). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like score_crm_note, which targets CRM notes, and call_scorecard, which likely defines the scorecard itself.

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 clearly implies when to use it: when you have a sales call transcript, notes, or summary to score. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the input scope is unambiguous given the sibling context. A 4 is appropriate because context is clear but no explicit 'when not to use' or alternative routing is provided.

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