Score content against the published quality rubric

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden. It discloses that the output is an Ed25519-signed score receipt, explains the effect of target_score on receipt issuance and charges, and mentions potential micropayment requirements. No contradictions exist.

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 clear and structured with sections (WHAT THIS IS, WHAT IT IS NOT, etc.), but is slightly verbose with some redundancy (e.g., repeating 'score content'). Front-loaded effectively with the main purpose.

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 description covers key aspects: scoring dimensions, receipt signing, optional features, and payment notes. However, it does not fully detail the return structure beyond mentioning a signed receipt and breakdown. Given no output schema, slightly more specificity could help, but it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, but the description adds significant value beyond the schema. It explains that rubric_version must match the service's current version if provided, and describes the target_score's 'no pass, no pay' mechanism in detail, which is not in the schema.

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 scores content against a published quality rubric, listing the four dimensions (clarity, completeness, internal consistency, obvious-error freedom) and the score range. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_quality_rubric (which reads the rubric) and implies it is the scoring action.

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 states what the tool is and is not, and explains the optional target_score parameter's 'no pass, no pay' behavior. It also notes the /v1/score endpoint is the paid action and may require micropayments, helping agents decide when to use the tool.

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