Get FairScale Score

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

The description implies a read-only operation ('score'), but annotations set readOnlyHint=false, indicating side effects. The description does not disclose that scoring likely writes a transaction or modifies state, contradicting the annotations. This is a critical omission.

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 sentences: the first directly states the purpose, the second adds usage context. No extraneous information, front-loaded effectively.

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?

Lacks essential behavioral context (write vs read) and side effects. Despite having an output schema, the description omits whether the call is mutable, which is critical for the agent to decide usage. The annotations are insufficient to compensate.

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 covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds value by emphasizing verification of the agent parameter and stability of metadata, 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 action ('Score an agent') and the resource ('using SDK FairScaleRegistry.score'), and adds SAP MCP context that distinguishes it from siblings like sap_fairscale_trust_gate.

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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use after verifying the target agent PDA or wallet and keep hashes/attestation metadata stable and auditable.' No explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is clear.

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