get_scorecard

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Read-only' and describes the return content (ratings, attribute scores, recommendation), which adds valuable context about side-effect safety and what the caller can expect. While it doesn't cover error cases or permissions, for a simple read operation this is sufficient.

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?

The description is three short sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, then returning content, and finally a usage tip. Every sentence earns its place with no repetition or filler. It is concise and well-structured.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, this description is complete. It states what it does, what it returns, and how to find the required ID. There is no missing context for an agent to invoke it correctly, and the sibling differentiation eliminates ambiguity.

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 already documents the only parameter with 100% coverage, including the instruction to get the ID from list_scorecards_for_application. The description repeats this guidance but adds minimal new meaning for the parameter itself. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get a single scorecard by ID' with a specific verb and resource. It also differentiates from the sibling list_scorecards_for_application by noting that the latter is for finding IDs. This makes the tool's scope immediately clear.

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?

The description explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool vs the alternative: 'To find scorecard IDs: list_scorecards_for_application.' It also marks the operation as 'Read-only,' giving clear context on safe usage. This is direct, actionable guidance.

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