Check evidence before MVR scoring

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds valuable context: it clarifies the tool does not compute readiness scores and imposes a data-handling rule ('Submit only consented, data-minimized, redacted or aggregated evidence; never secrets, credentials, or personal identifiers'). This discloses behavior beyond annotations without contradiction.

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 organized with clear sections but contains redundancy: 'Use after evidence completeness' appears twice (first sentence and in the 'Use when' section). It could be more concise while retaining critical information.

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 covers the tool's main purpose, usage timing, exclusions, and input data constraints. Given the nested schema and presence of an output schema, it is reasonably complete, though it could elaborate on what 'abstain' means or how licensed scoring is invoked.

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%, so the schema documents parameter structure well. The description adds semantic constraint on the `evidence_pack` parameter through the data-privacy rule and by referencing 'structurally complete pack' and 'missing proof,' guiding how evidence should be provided.

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 a specific action: 'route a structurally complete pack toward licensed MVR scoring or abstain on missing proof.' It distinguishes from siblings by positioning after 'evidence completeness' and explicitly noting it 'does not compute market, pilot, or scale readiness.'

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?

Provides explicit usage conditions: 'Use after evidence completeness' and a 'Do not use when' section listing disqualifying uses. However, it lacks a direct pointer to alternative sibling tools for those excluded uses, falling short of the highest bar.

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