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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the content is static and public, which is genuinely new information: no authentication is required and the output is stable across calls. It stops short of stating the return format or size.

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, both dense and front-loaded: the first names the standard and enumerates its contents, the second classifies it as a static public reference. No filler or restatement of the name.

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 must convey what comes back, and it does enumerate the payload (pillars, rules with severity and deductions, grade bands). The only remaining gap is the concrete return format, which an agent would discover only by calling.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema has nothing to document and the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies a parameterless lookup with no filters or arguments to supply.

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 clearly: the current scoring method (Agent Signal v0.2), broken into five weighted pillars, rules with severities and deductions, and grade bands. That is concrete and distinct from agent-specific siblings like get_agent_report, but the description never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings, leaving the differentiation implicit.

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 phrase 'Static, public reference' implies the use case (look up the rubric rather than an agent's result), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative such as get_agent_report when the agent actually wants a scored result.

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