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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the score is 0-100, it carries a formula version, it distinguishes measured data from missing dealer-controlled metrics, and it flags which metrics are not on record. It does not cover failure behavior for an unknown slug, which keeps it off a 5.

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?

One dense sentence, front-loaded with the resource and then the payload inventory, with no filler. It is long and comma-chained, which pushes reading cost up, but every clause conveys distinct information about what comes back.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the full burden of describing the return value, and it does so comprehensively — score, band, version, category breakdown, coverage, sources, and gaps. Combined with annotations covering safety and idempotency, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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 description coverage is 0% for the single slug parameter, so the description must compensate and it partially does by naming two acceptable sources (find_dealers output or the dealer's name). It never states the expected slug format, casing, or URL convention, and it is unclear whether a raw dealer name is accepted verbatim as a slug.

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 names a specific resource (one dealer's Everroad Score) and enumerates exactly what the payload contains: score, band, formula version, per-category points, weight coverage, metric sources, and absent website-controlled metrics. That is far more specific than a restated title. It does not explicitly contrast itself with dealer_facts or compare_dealers, so an agent must infer the boundary from the resource name alone.

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 closing clause tells the agent where the required argument comes from: 'Slug from find_dealers, or the dealer's name,' which effectively routes through a sibling tool. It gives no when-not conditions or explicit alternatives, but the usage context is clear and actionable.

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