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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds value by clarifying that the tool never starts or retries scoring, and by indicating that the response can be either a status or a saved result, which helps set expectations about partial vs. final outcomes.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the clarifying side-effect boundary is stated immediately after, making the description easy to parse and act on.

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 simple read-only retrieval tool with annotations covering safety and an output schema covering return values, the description is complete. It states what the tool reads, implies the ID-based lookup, and explicitly rules out write actions. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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?

The description does not explain the parameters, and schema description coverage is only 50% because scoringJobId lacks a description. However, the parameter name is self-explanatory and the pattern provides structural validation, while intent has its own schema description. The description adds no semantic value beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and a specific resource ('status or saved result of your FRQ scoring request'), making the tool's function immediately clear. It also distinguishes itself from scoring initiation tools by stating it never starts or retries scoring.

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 conveys that this tool is for retrieving an existing scoring request's status or saved result, and explicitly rules out using it to start or retry scoring. It does not name the alternative tool for starting a scoring request, but the context is clear enough for an agent to make the right call.

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