Get scoring configuration

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It states the tool is 'Free' and returns tenant-specific config, but it does not explicitly confirm that the operation is read-only, whether any authentication is needed, or what 'Free' means. The 'get' verb implies safety, but more explicit behavioral disclosure would improve transparency.

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 concise sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence immediately explains the tool's output; the second adds a use case. All words earn their place, and the structure is front-loaded.

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 simple zero-parameter getter, the description covers the essential context: what is returned, that it is free, and when it is useful. No output schema exists, but the description gives enough detail about the config composition. It does not overpromise or omit critical information.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there are no parameter semantics to add. Baseline for zero params is 4. The description adds value by clarifying what the configuration contains, which is more than schema alone would provide.

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 the tenant's scoring configuration, specifying the exact contents: weight and threshold overrides plus the effective merged engine config. This goes beyond the title and distinguishes it from siblings like get_stats or explain_event.

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 gives a clear use case: 'Useful for explaining why a score landed where it did.' This implies when to use it relative to scoring-related tasks. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or exclusions, so it stops short of full comparative guidance.

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