get_pa_scorecard

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true (safe read) and openWorldHint=true. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond stating it returns data. No mention of rate limits, authorization needs, or side effects. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate as the description does not contradict or significantly enrich 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?

A single 15-word sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then lists return fields. Every word is necessary and no filler. Excellent conciseness.

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?

The description lacks an output schema, so it partially describes return values (current value, target, trend direction) but does not specify structure, nor how optional parameters like include_scores or breakdown_sys_id modify the result. For a simple retrieval tool, it is adequate but not complete.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters. The description does not add extra meaning or usage notes beyond what is already in the schema. For example, it doesn't explain how 'include_scores' or 'breakdown_sys_id' affect the output. Baseline 3 is correct given high schema coverage.

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 gets current scorecard data for a PA indicator and lists the return fields (current value, target, trend direction). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_pa_indicator (indicator definition) and get_pa_time_series (historical data), making the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 implies usage for retrieving current scorecard data but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, such as when not to use it or what related tools (e.g., get_pa_time_series) are better suited for historical or time-series needs. Lacks guidance on context or prerequisites.

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