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

Annotations already declare this is a safe read-only, closed-world computation, lowering the disclosure bar. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral trait beyond the annotations: consent and integrity gates fail closed when data is missing, which tells the agent how missing inputs are handled. It stops short of describing the returned value's shape or error surface.

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 tightly written sentences with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the gating caveat. 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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining the return value, and it does not — an agent cannot tell whether the result is a scalar, a 0–1 index, or an object with per-gate flags. The fail-closed note is helpful but partial. Adequate for invoking, incomplete for interpreting.

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 schema already documents every parameter, including the nested cf and integrity objects and their fail-closed behavior. The description adds only the high-level notion of multiplicative gating and does not clarify units, weighting, or interaction between ii and the integrity sub-scores. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Compute the multiplicative gated AXI Score (AXI v2.0, Section 4.5.8) from telemetry metrics.' This clearly distinguishes the operation from a generic calculation and pins it to a spec section. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling axi_calculate_autonomy_score, so it falls short of a 5 on sibling differentiation.

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?

Usage is only implied: the tool computes a score from telemetry metrics, so an agent can infer it is for scoring rather than retrieving definitions or searching papers. There is no statement of when to use this versus axi_calculate_autonomy_score or any prerequisite for the telemetry inputs. The absence of alternatives leaves the routing decision to inference.

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