Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_earningsC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves historical data ('earnings history'), implying it's a read-only operation, but doesn't explicitly confirm safety (e.g., no mutations). It lacks details on rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination (beyond the schema's page_size), or error conditions. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists key data fields. It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, though it could be slightly more structured by separating usage context from data details.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool's moderate complexity (retrieving historical data with one optional parameter), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers what data is returned but lacks behavioral context (e.g., authentication, rate limits) and doesn't explain the return format. For a tool with no structured output, more detail on the response structure would be helpful.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'page_size' fully documented in the schema (type, range, default). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as how pagination interacts with the earnings data. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool retrieves bounty earnings history with specific details (amounts, currency, dates, programs). It uses the verb 'Get' with the resource 'bounty earnings history' and lists the data fields returned. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_report_activities' or 'search_reports' which might also involve earnings-related data.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication needs), when not to use it, or how it differs from sibling tools that might overlap with earnings data. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.

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

• list_programsC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists programs but omits critical details: it doesn't mention pagination behavior (implied by the 'page_size' parameter), authentication requirements, rate limits, or what the output looks like (e.g., format, fields). This is a significant gap for a tool with potential complexity.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without redundancy. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. There's no wasted verbiage or unnecessary elaboration.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like authentication, pagination, or output format, which are essential for an agent to use the tool effectively. For a list operation with potential complexity, more context is needed to guide proper invocation.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the single parameter ('page_size') with its type, constraints, and default. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable given the high coverage, but it doesn't compensate with additional context like typical usage patterns.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the action ('List') and resource ('bug bounty programs you have access to on HackerOne'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its siblings (like 'get_program_scope' or 'get_program_weaknesses'), which would require mentioning that this returns a list of programs rather than details about a specific program.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication), compare it to sibling tools, or specify scenarios where it's appropriate (e.g., initial discovery vs. detailed analysis). This leaves the agent with minimal context for tool selection.

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

• get_report_with_conversationB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool is 'great for learning what works,' which hints at educational use but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what 'full triage conversation' entails (e.g., format, pagination). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is concise and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose. The additional sentences provide context on usefulness without being redundant. However, the phrase 'Great for learning what works' is somewhat vague and could be more precise, slightly reducing efficiency.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., the structure of the conversation data), error conditions, or dependencies. For a tool that presumably fetches detailed report data, this omission makes it harder for an agent to use effectively without additional context.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'report_id' parameter clearly documented as 'The HackerOne report ID.' The description doesn't add any semantic details beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get a report with its full triage conversation.' It specifies the resource (report) and the key feature (full triage conversation). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'get_report' or 'get_report_activities,' which likely provide different aspects of report data.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description implies when to use this tool by stating it's 'useful for understanding what questions triage asked, how you responded, and what led to resolution.' This suggests it should be used when detailed conversational context is needed. However, it doesn't provide explicit alternatives (e.g., when to use 'get_report' instead) or exclusions, leaving some ambiguity compared to siblings.

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

• search_reportsB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the search/list functionality and filtering capabilities, it doesn't address important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior beyond the parameters, or what format the results will be in. The description provides basic functionality but lacks critical operational context.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is appropriately concise with two sentences that each serve a purpose. The first sentence states the core functionality, and the second provides usage context. There's no wasted verbiage, though it could be slightly more structured for optimal front-loading of information.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a 7-parameter search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address what the tool returns (report objects? summaries?), how results are structured, pagination behavior beyond the parameters, or error conditions. The usage hint helps but doesn't compensate for the missing behavioral and output context needed for effective tool invocation.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters thoroughly. The description mentions filtering by 'keyword, program, severity, or state' which aligns with some parameters but doesn't add meaningful semantic context beyond what's already in the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool searches and lists HackerOne reports with specific filtering capabilities. It uses specific verbs ('search and list') and identifies the resource ('HackerOne reports'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_report' or 'list_programs'.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides an implied usage context ('Great for finding past reports to reference when drafting new ones'), which gives some guidance on when to use it. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives among the sibling tools, leaving some ambiguity about tool selection.

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

• analyze_report_patternsB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions fetching and analyzing reports but doesn't specify whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, whether it's computationally intensive, or what format the analysis results take. For a pattern analysis tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is appropriately concise with two sentences that efficiently communicate purpose and utility. The first sentence clearly states the action and analysis targets, while the second explains the value. There's no wasted verbiage, though it could be slightly more structured with explicit separation of fetch vs analyze phases.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given a single parameter with full schema coverage but no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate purpose context but lacks behavioral and output information. For a pattern analysis tool that presumably returns structured insights, the absence of output schema means the description should ideally hint at return format, but it doesn't. The description is minimally complete but leaves important contextual gaps.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 100% with only one parameter (page_size) fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't mention any parameters or add semantic context beyond what the schema provides. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate - the description neither compensates for gaps nor adds value beyond the schema.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Fetch your recent reports and analyze patterns' with specific analysis targets (vulnerability types, severity distribution, resolution rates, programs). It distinguishes from obvious siblings like 'get_report' (single report) and 'search_reports' (searching rather than analyzing patterns). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings like 'get_report_activities' or 'get_report_with_conversation'.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides implied usage context: 'Useful for understanding your hunting profile' suggests this is for security researchers analyzing their own report patterns. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'search_reports' for filtering or 'get_program_weaknesses' for program-specific analysis. No clear when-not-to-use guidance or prerequisites are mentioned.

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

• get_program_weaknessesB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes a read operation ('Get') but does not specify if it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or details the output format (e.g., list of CWE IDs). The mention of 'page_size' in the schema hints at pagination, but the description does not address this behavior, leaving gaps in transparency.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is concise with two sentences that directly address the tool's purpose and utility. It avoids redundancy and is front-loaded with the core function. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating usage guidance, but overall, it is efficient with minimal waste.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete for a read tool with two parameters. It covers the purpose and hints at usage but lacks details on behavioral aspects like authentication, error handling, or output structure. For a tool that likely returns a list of CWE categories, more context on the return format would enhance completeness, but it meets a basic threshold.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('program_handle' and 'page_size') with descriptions. The description adds context by linking 'program_handle' to 'program' and implying 'page_size' relates to 'weaknesses to return,' but does not provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema offers. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get the accepted vulnerability/weakness types for a program.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('accepted vulnerability/weakness types'), and adds context about framing reports with CWE categories. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_program_scope' or 'analyze_report_patterns', which might overlap in domain but serve different functions.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description implies usage by stating it 'Helps frame reports using the right CWE categories the program cares about,' suggesting it should be used when preparing or analyzing reports. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'get_program_scope' for scope details or 'search_reports' for report data), and does not mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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

• get_reportA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states it 'Returns title, vulnerability details, impact, severity, CVSS, timestamps, and program info,' which gives some behavioral context about the return format. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or whether it's a read-only operation, which is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists return details concisely. Every part earns its place with no wasted words, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and return details, which is adequate for a simple read operation. However, it lacks information on behavioral aspects like error cases or authentication needs, making it incomplete for full contextual understanding despite the tool's low complexity.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'report_id' clearly documented as 'The HackerOne report ID.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('full details of a specific HackerOne report by ID'), specifying it returns title, vulnerability details, impact, severity, CVSS, timestamps, and program info. It distinguishes from siblings like get_report_activities or get_report_with_conversation by focusing on core report details rather than activities or conversations.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description implies usage when needing full report details by ID, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_report_with_conversation or search_reports. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving usage context somewhat vague.

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

• get_report_activitiesA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what the tool retrieves but lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't mention pagination behavior (despite having a 'page_size' parameter), rate limits, authentication requirements, or error handling. For a read operation with parameters, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get the activity timeline of a report') and follows with specific details. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or vague phrasing, making it highly scannable and informative.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the purpose well but lacks behavioral context (e.g., pagination, errors) and output details. Without annotations or an output schema, the agent must rely on the description alone, which leaves gaps in understanding the full tool behavior and results.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters ('report_id' and 'page_size') with descriptions and constraints. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as clarifying the format of 'report_id' or explaining pagination context for 'page_size'. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the specific action ('Get the activity timeline') and resource ('of a report'), with explicit enumeration of what activities are included ('comments, state changes, bounty awards, and triage responses'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_report' (which likely returns report metadata) and 'get_report_with_conversation' (which might focus on conversations rather than the full activity timeline).

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description implies usage context by specifying the type of activities retrieved, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_report_with_conversation' or 'get_report'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage from the tool's purpose alone.

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

• get_program_scopeA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's behavior by specifying the return data (asset types, identifiers, bounty eligibility, severity caps) and a use case, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination (beyond the 'page_size' parameter in schema), or error handling. The description doesn't contradict any annotations, but with no annotations, it only partially fulfills the transparency requirement.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is appropriately sized with two sentences: the first states the purpose and output, and the second provides a usage tip. It's front-loaded with essential information and has zero wasted words, making it efficient and easy to parse.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, 100% schema coverage, no output schema), the description is fairly complete. It covers the purpose, output details, and a use case, but lacks information on output format (e.g., structure of returned assets), error cases, or integration with sibling tools. Without an output schema, more detail on return values would be beneficial, but it's adequate for basic understanding.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters ('program_handle' and 'page_size'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as examples or constraints not covered. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'in-scope assets for a bug bounty program' with specific output details (asset types, identifiers, bounty eligibility, severity caps). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_programs' or 'get_report' by focusing on program scope rather than programs or reports themselves, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get_program_weaknesses' which might be related.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides implied usage context ('Useful when drafting reports to pick the correct asset'), suggesting it's for report preparation. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_programs' (which might list programs without scope details) or 'get_program_weaknesses' (which might focus on vulnerabilities rather than assets), nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites.

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