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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), and the description adds real value by disclosing the payload's content: measurement definition, point value, and remediation pointer. It stops short of describing behavior on unmatched or ambiguous names.

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, zero filler, and the return-content summary is front-loaded ahead of the parameter guidance.

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 single-parameter read-only lookup with full schema coverage, the description is nearly sufficient, covering purpose, input source, and return content without an output schema. It omits failure/ambiguity behavior, which matters given the fuzzy name matching implied by the schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes beyond the schema by specifying the name's provenance ('as it appears in a report') and giving a concrete example string. It does not reconcile the tension with the schema's allowance for 'a few words from it' (fuzzy matching).

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 verb (explain) and resource (one Agent Ready check), and enumerates what the explanation contains: what it measures, its weight, and where to read the fix. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_report or get_scoring_method, though the name-based scope makes the distinction inferable.

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?

"Pass the check name as it appears in a report" implies the workflow (call a report first, then drill into a check) but never states when to use this versus get_report or get_scoring_method, nor when not to use it. Usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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