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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that no API key is required and that results include version numbers, and it implies a pure read operation ('Return'). It doesn't mention rate limits or caching, but for a zero-parameter getter this is adequate.

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 first sentence is a dense list, but every item is informative. The second sentence adds authentication and usage context; the third provides a Portuguese trigger. There is no fluff, though the enumeration is slightly long.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description covers what is returned, the authentication requirement, and when to use it. Nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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 has zero parameters, so there is no parameter documentation burden. The description focuses on return values rather than parameters, which is appropriate. Baseline 4 for 0-param tools 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Return') and precisely enumerates the resource and its contents: public rubric by work type, tier ladder, thresholds, minimum score for citable records, accept/refuse criteria, each with version numbers. It also differentiates from siblings by positioning itself as a pre-call for evaluate_text, so an agent can distinguish it from screen_text and verify_record.

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 states explicit use cases: 'Use before calling evaluate_text, or to show a user what a score decomposes into.' It also provides a Portuguese trigger phrase, which helps with localization. It does not explicitly list when-not-to-use alternatives, but the guidance is clear enough.

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