get_scorecard

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool is a read operation ('Fetch'), returns claims, verdicts, evidence quotes, source surface, and for CLI/API tests includes command, exit_code, and duration. The term 'sanitized' adds context. It does not mention permissions or side effects, but for a fetch operation this is adequate.

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?

Two sentences: first sentence states purpose and output; second gives version and use case. No redundant information. Every sentence adds value. Front-loaded with key 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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main return fields and use case. It lacks error conditions or invalid slug handling, but is largely complete. The version note is a nice touch.

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 fully describes the single parameter 'slug' with explanation and examples. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3.

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 fetches a 'full sanitized claim-vs-evidence scorecard' for a single agent. The verb 'fetch' and resource 'scorecard' are specific. It distinguishes from siblings like 'compare_agents' by explicitly stating the use case 'for agent-to-agent pre-flight evaluation' and focusing on a single agent.

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 a clear use case ('agent-to-agent pre-flight evaluation'). While it does not explicitly mention when not to use or list alternatives, the sibling tools in context signal different purposes. The guidance is clear but lacks exclusions.

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