Readiness report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world scope, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: unknown ids and invalid values are silently ignored (graceful degradation), and it discloses what the output contains. It does not mention rate limits or output size limits, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Three dense sentences that front-load the action and input, then the return value, then the error-tolerance rule. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so (overall and per-baseline readiness, maturity averages, applicability counts, largest gaps). Input, output and edge-case handling are all covered; only deeper detail such as output-size behavior relative to limit/offset is left implicit.

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%, so lang/limit/offset/response_format are already documented and the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by detailing the required `assessment` object's internal shape (schema "sadu/1", maturity 1-5, applicability, notes), which the schema only labels as "The exported assessment object."

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 gives a specific verb ("Score") plus the exact resource and its origin ("an assessment exported from the Sadu web app"), and enumerates the input shape it expects (status per control, maturity, applicability, notes). This clearly separates it from the corf_list_*/corf_get_*/corf_search siblings, which enumerate or fetch rather than score an assessment.

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?

Usage is implied by the input requirement: you have an exported Sadu assessment and want a readiness score. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no distinction from corf_overview (which may also summarize), and no stated prerequisites or exclusions. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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