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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context the annotations don't: approximate payload size (~8 KB) and a full inventory of the return contents, which signals this is the heavyweight variant. It stops short of stating auth needs or failure modes, so not a 5.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the resource and payload size, then the routing rule. The middle enumeration is long but each item is a distinct return field, so it earns its place; slightly dense but not padded.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return values and does so thoroughly — pillars, provenance-tagged stat grid, ARR windows, history depth, alerts, conflicts. Combined with the digest routing rule, an agent has everything needed to select and invoke it correctly.

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% and the single slug parameter is documented in-schema with an example ('geodnet'). The description adds no format, resolution, or validation detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('one token's full scorecard') and enumerates exactly what it returns (pillar scores, stat grid, ARR change, history, alerts, conflicts). The phrase 'full scorecard' paired with the explicit contrast to tc_get_token_digest lets an agent distinguish it from its closest sibling immediately.

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 final sentence gives an explicit selection rule: 'Use only when tc_get_token_digest lacks what the user asked for.' This names the alternative tool and the condition that selects this one, leaving nothing to inference.

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