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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by enumerating what the scorecard contains (latency percentiles, accuracy, freshness, tokens, cost), which compensates for the absent output schema.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the resource and scope, followed by a compact metric list. The metric enumeration is dense but earns its place given there is no output schema.

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 one-param, non-destructive read tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description supplies the one thing structured data lacks: what metrics come back. Nothing critical to correct invocation is 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% with an enum that already documents the four valid values, so the description's repetition of 'gtm, insurance, finance or overall' adds no new syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting on a single enum param.

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 resource (full metric scorecard) and scopes it to a single use case with the enumerated values. It distinguishes itself implicitly from siblings like get_overall_results and compare_providers by being the per-use-case metric dump, though it never names those alternatives directly.

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?

Usage is only implied: the mention of 'one use case (gtm, insurance, finance) or overall' signals the selection axis, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or pointer to compare_providers/get_overall_results when a different view is wanted.

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