Read a scoreboard

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

readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false already declare the safety and locality profile, so the description only needs incremental context. It adds the ownership constraint on the target resource, but says nothing about what happens for unknown/foreign ids (error vs. empty) and its note about output contents partly duplicates the existing output schema.

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?

One compact sentence with the resource and the scoping constraint front-loaded; nothing is padded. The trailing clause about team IDs and revision is slightly informational rather than operational, but it is brief.

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?

With annotations and an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values or safety. It is still missing how to source/format the required id and the failure behavior for ids outside the account, which are the two things an agent needs to call this correctly.

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 0% and the single `id` parameter has a pattern constraint but no prose meaning in the schema. The description never mentions the id argument, where to obtain it, or that it must match the pattern, so the coverage gap is left unfilled.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("read a scoreboard") and narrows the scope to scoreboards created through this API by the connected account, which distinguishes it from a generic lookup. It does not explicitly name the sibling it differs from (list_scoreboards), but the singular-object scope makes the distinction inferable.

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 phrase "created through this API by the connected account" implies the usage precondition (only scoreboards owned by the caller are reachable), but no when-to-use/when-not guidance or alternatives are named. An agent must infer that list_scoreboards is the route for discovery and this tool for a known id.

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