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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the gate-times-BaseScore computation model and names gate categories, which is useful context, but omits return format, failure behavior, and auth or rate-limit details.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states the computation and its components without filler. Every clause earns its place.

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?

The rich input schema and read-only annotations cover parameter and safety context. The description supplies the formula, but because there is no output schema, it does not describe the return value or score range; still, it is nearly complete for a calculation 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by tying major parameters together through the formula: safety-case, bystander-legibility, consent, and integrity gates multiplied by episode-weighted role BaseScore.

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?

States a specific verb (compute), resource (AXI_A), and target domains, plus the formula inputs. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling axi_calculate_score, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Lists applicable domains (robotaxis, driver-assistance, delivery robots, humanoids), which implies when to use it, but gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternative sibling tools. Usage is only implied.

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