explain

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it pulls from the published scorecard, returns per-claim verdicts, evidence snippets, and a synthesis, and explains dimension filtering behavior. It does not explicitly state read-only/no side effects, but the language implies a non-destructive read operation.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. Each subsequent sentence adds useful detail (evidence source, parameter behavior, output format) without fluff.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, input semantics, and output format. It explains the dimension enum, the behavior when omitted, and the verdict values returned, making it complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 schema already documents slug and dimension (100% coverage), but the description adds the specific allowed dimension values (reliability, transparency, integration, security, evidence) and clarifies that omitting the dimension returns the full picture, going beyond the schema's generic 'optional dimension filter'.

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 provides a structured natural-language explanation of why a Hlido-reviewed agent has its current score, pulling claim-by-claim evidence from the scorecard. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like get_scorecard (raw scorecard) and verify_claim (verify individual claims).

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 gives clear context on when to use: to obtain an explanation of an agent's score. It also provides specific guidance for the dimension parameter (list of valid values and omit for full picture), but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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