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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the returned data (history, attestation count, score) but does not explicitly state it is read-only or mention any side effects. Lacks detail on permission requirements or pagination limits.

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?

Single sentence, no extra words. Information is front-loaded and clear. Every part contributes to understanding.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema and a single required parameter, the description is fairly complete for a retrieval tool. It covers the three main outputs. Could add a note about ordering or date range, but not essential.

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%, so description must add meaning. It implies agent_id identifies the agent, but does not explain format, examples, or source. For a simple required parameter, this is minimal but acceptable.

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?

Description clearly states the tool returns three components: outcome history, attestation count, and current score for an agent. It distinguishes from sibling tools like record_outcome (write) or attest (perform action) by focusing on retrieval. However, the verb 'history' is used as a noun, slightly awkward.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs siblings like score_agent or describe_agent. The description implies it is for retrieving full history and current score, but does not state when it's appropriate or alternatives.

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