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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses read-only behavior and names the underlying data sources for each metric (capture-eval gap report, durable rows, llm_usage source=distiller), which is useful behavioral context. It does not cover auth requirements or rate limits, but for a read-only scorecard this is reasonably transparent.

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 front-loaded with the tool's purpose and metrics, then adds compact source definitions. Every sentence carries information, and the doc pointer is brief. No wasted text.

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 a simple one-parameter schema and an output schema, the description supplies enough context: it identifies the tool as read-only, defines the metrics, and cites the data sources. Missing usage guidance is a gap, but for a metrics report tool with output schema, the description is largely complete.

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 100% for the single days parameter, so the schema already defines the parameter. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, but baseline 3 applies when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 read-only reporting tool for distiller effectiveness and enumerates the four metrics it returns (coverage, attribution, crumb rate, cost). This is clear but does not distinguish itself from sibling memory analytics tools such as memory_dream_status or memory_status.

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?

Provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternatives. The pointer to docs/distill-scorecard.md is documentation, not invocation guidance.

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