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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable context: 'Methodology travels with data' and the specific contents returned. This goes beyond what annotations convey and clarifies the tool's role.

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 two sentences: the first states purpose and contents, the second gives a bolded usage guideline. It is efficient, front-loaded, and contains no redundant or filler words.

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?

With one parameter, full schema coverage, an output schema, and strong annotations, the description covers all necessary context: what the tool returns and when to invoke it. Nothing critical is missing for a low-complexity read-only retrieval tool.

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% and the single parameter 'category' has an enum with descriptions. The description adds only the phrase 'one category' and does not elaborate on parameter choices or formats, so it provides no additional value over the schema.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves 'the scoring methodology for one category' and enumerates its contents (weights, signal sources, formulas, evidence-ready rule, known limitations). This goes beyond a simple restatement and strongly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_category_ranking.

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 explicitly says to call this tool 'when explaining HOW a ranking works' and frames the benefit as 'methodology-accurate answer instead of guessing'. This gives clear usage context, though it does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it.

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