get_pa_scorecard

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful behavioral context by naming the return fields (current value, target, trend direction). However, it does not disclose edge-case behaviors like handling of missing indicators or empty data, but for a simple getter with read-only annotations, this is sufficient.

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 immediately states the tool's purpose and key output fields. Every word earns its place, with no filler, repetition, or tangential details.

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?

For a read-only tool with full schema coverage and read-only annotations, the description is complete enough: it explains what the tool returns (scorecard data with value, target, trend) and implies the current-time scope. The lack of an output schema is adequately compensated by naming the returned attributes, and the sibling list contains related PA indicator tools, but this description clearly differentiates the scorecard focus.

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?

The input schema provides descriptions for all four parameters (period, include_scores, breakdown_sys_id, indicator_sys_id) with 100% coverage. The tool description itself does not add any parameter-level meaning beyond what is already in the schema, matching the baseline for fully described parameters.

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 specifies a clear action ('Get'), a precise resource ('current scorecard data for a PA indicator'), and explicitly lists the primary return fields ('current value, target, trend direction'). This distinguishes it from related tools like get_pa_indicator or get_pa_time_series, which focus on indicator details or time-series data rather than scorecard summaries.

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 phrase 'current scorecard data' implies that this tool is for retrieving current metric snapshots, but the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as get_pa_time_series or list_pa_dashboards. No exclusions or contrasting guidance is provided, so usage context is only implied.

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