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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses that only cached results are returned and a fresh analysis is never triggered, the 404 behavior for code_score, the X-API-Key auth requirement, and the api_key-in-arguments fallback. These are exactly the behavioral traits an agent needs before invoking.

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?

Despite covering many constraints, it is front-loaded with the core purpose and then tightens with routing, caching, and auth in a scannable sequence. Every sentence carries an actionable constraint, so nothing is wasted.

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 read-only analytical tool with no output schema, it adequately describes what the returns contain (trimmed per-analysis results, aggregated or vault-scoped) and fully covers auth, exclusivity, and caching. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly appears to be missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: the mutual exclusivity of project_id/vault_id, the semantics of aggregation vs single vault, and the analysis_key restriction to non-code_score values. It stops short of enumerating valid analysis_key values.

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 verb (Returns) and resource (trimmed Code IQ automated analyses covering architecture, scalability, EOL, AI functionality) with explicit scope (project-aggregated or single vault). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get-the-code-score by naming the excluded analysis.

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 explicit routing: use get-the-code-score for The Code Score, and do not pass analysis_key=code_score here. It states the exactly-one-of project_id/vault_id constraint and the plan/access prerequisites (full data access, paid plan, verification-only excluded), leaving little to inference.

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