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

Annotations already cover readOnly/openWorld, and the description adds real value beyond them: it says the portfolio is private to the person, breaks down the scoring weights, and warns that the score reflects page well-formedness, not citations or authorship. That last caveat is a useful behavioral nuance an agent could not get from 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?

It is a single tight paragraph and front-loads the resource, which is good, but the wordy circumlocutions ('three tenths', 'a fifth', 'not counted yet') reduce parseability. The content largely earns its place but the delivery is denser and more figurative than necessary.

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 no output schema, the description must convey return values, and it does describe the structure — every site by real name, per-part contributions and rationale, public-facing view, and highest-leverage levers. That is fairly complete for a zero-param read tool, though exact shape (types, ordering) remains implicit.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. Nothing in the description is needed to clarify inputs, and none is misleading.

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 does identify a specific resource — the person's private portfolio with a composite score across claimed sites — but the ornate phrasing ('half for what was improved while they held each site') buries the plain purpose. It does not distinguish this from siblings like mttr_sites or mttr_site, so the agent gets a fuzzy sense of what it returns rather than a crisp verb+resource statement.

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?

No indication of when to prefer this over mttr_sites, mttr_site, or mttr_leaderboard, and no preconditions stated. The reader must infer usage context entirely.

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