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

The readOnlyHint annotation already discloses that the operation is read-only, and the description adds context about the two input modes. However, it does not explain what 'scoring' entails, whether it returns a score, or any other behavioral details beyond the annotation, leaving some ambiguity.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with a descriptive label, and does not waste words. The 'Agent Sprawl Radar:' prefix is slightly decorative but not harmful. Overall, it is concise and scannable.

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?

The tool has two parameters, no output schema, and a terse description. It does not explain what the returned score means, what the output format is, or when to use each parameter. Given the absence of an output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return behavior and fails to do so, leaving the tool under-specified.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for the bare schema. It does add some meaning by associating 'agent' with 'normalized agent payload' and 'agent_id' with 'existing registry agent,' but it fails to explain the relationship between the two parameters, their requirements, or the structure of the payload. This is insufficient for such sparse schema descriptions.

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 clearly identifies the action ('score') and the resource ('a normalized agent payload or an existing registry agent'). It conveys the tool's unique function compared to siblings like get_agent or list_agents, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from potential alternatives such as explain_agent_risk.

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 provides clear context for use by specifying two valid inputs: a normalized agent payload or an existing registry agent. It does not, however, state explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mention alternative tools, so it stops short of full usage guidance.

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