get_pa_scorecard

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is established. The description adds the return fields (current value, target, trend direction), which is useful but minimal. It does not disclose details like aggregation behavior, period defaults, or exact response format beyond what the schema already implies. This is sufficient but not rich.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and return data. No filler or redundant words.

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?

Given that the tool is a straightforward read operation with no output schema, the description adequately covers its behavior. It states what data is returned, and the schema covers the parameters. However, it could be slightly more complete by noting that it returns a summary rather than raw time series, but the current level is sufficient for the tool's complexity.

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%, with each parameter described in the input schema. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies. No extra context about how period or include_scores affect the result is provided in the description.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'scorecard data for a PA indicator', and enumerates the return content (current value, target, trend direction). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_pa_indicator or get_pa_time_series, which deal with indicator metadata or time series data respectively.

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 provides clear context of what the tool returns, which helps an agent understand when to use it (when a summary scorecard is needed). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as 'for raw time series, use get_pa_time_series', so it lacks the explicit when-not guidance of a 5.

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