get_scorecard

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it usefully discloses two behavioral traits: zero credit cost and read-only (non-mutating). It stops short of disclosing auth requirements, rate limits, or freshness of the indicator data, so it adds real but incomplete context.

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 terse sentences that front-load the resource and its content, with the cost/read-only qualifier kept compact at the end. No filler or redundancy.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required, and the description covers the resource, its indicator type, the time window, and the cost/safety profile. The main gap is the unexplained project_id required parameter and the absence of routing versus sibling analytics tools.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The phrase '28 or 90 days' usefully constrains the days parameter to two values (information absent from the schema, which only shows a default of 28), but project_id is entirely unexplained, leaving half the parameters undocumented.

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 (KPI scorecard) and its content (leading + lagging indicators) plus a scope window, so an agent knows what is returned. It does not, however, distinguish this from related analytics siblings like get_analytics_insights or get_revenue_insights, so 4 rather than 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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_analytics_insights or get_traffic_snapshot. The 28/90-day window is a scope constraint, not usage routing guidance, so this is essentially no guidance.

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