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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond that by stating what data is returned and that the calibration record is conditional ('when present'). It does not discuss edge cases like missing reviewers, but the output schema and simple read-only nature reduce that burden.

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 dense sentences carry the full message: the first defines the return content and its conditional part, the second gives the invocation trigger. There is no filler, repetition of schema fields, or unnecessary context.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description covers what is returned in terms of content that matters for selection and invocation. It does not mention not-found behavior or alternative sibling tools, but those are not essential for correctly choosing and calling this tool.

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 schema has a single required handle with 0% description coverage. The description compensates by implying the handle is a named Pith reviewer's identifier and tying it to the user's question about trustworthiness. It could explicitly state that handle is the reviewer's handle, but with only one parameter the inference is strong.

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 identifies the resource (a reviewer's record) and specifies its contents: published signed reviews plus an optional calibration record with Brier score, open predictions, and positivity skew. It is clear and concrete, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as get_signed_reviews or get_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?

It provides an explicit trigger: call this when the user asks about a named Pith reviewer or about how trustworthy a reviewer's track record is. It lacks when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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