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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds beyond that with 'performs no lookup, stores nothing, and cannot change Tier1 scoring rules,' providing extra behavioral boundaries not fully covered by the annotations.

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 two-sentence, front-loaded statement that immediately states the action and outputs. Every clause adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

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 0 parameters, a clear output schema, and annotations, the description is fully complete: it explains what is returned, when to call, and what the tool cannot do. It leaves no significant gaps for an agent to interpret.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivial. The description adds no parameter-specific information because none is needed; the baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on output contents.

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 uses a specific verb 'Returns' and names the exact resource: 'current static Tier1 question set, answer options, conditional rules, versions, one-question-at-a-time guidance, and fields that must never be requested.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like score_it_health_check or get_tier1_recommendations.

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 explicitly states when to call: 'Call before conducting an assessment or when a stored question version may be stale.' It also implies when not to use it by noting it 'cannot change Tier1 scoring rules,' though it does not explicitly name an alternative tool.

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