fahali_get_track_record_scorecard

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the metrics returned, emphasizes the base-rate lift nuance, and states 'Public data — no tier required,' providing access transparency. Does not describe side effects (none expected for a read operation).

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and every sentence adds value: tool function, return contents, usage warning, access note. No redundant or vague language.

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?

Despite no output schema or annotations, the description covers what the tool returns and how to use the results. Lacks details on output format (e.g., JSON structure), but for a simple data retrieval tool, this is adequate.

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?

Tool has zero parameters; schema coverage is 100% (trivially). Per guidelines, baseline score of 4 applies since description adds no parameter info but none is needed.

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 retrieves a '4-axis track record scorecard' listing specific metrics (direction accuracy, magnitude precision, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools that cover different financial analyses.

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?

Includes explicit guidance: 'Do NOT cite raw percentages without the base rate lift,' instructing the agent on correct output usage. Lacks explicit when-to-use vs alternatives, but sibling context suggests it's for track record evaluation.

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