explain_score

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

With no annotations, the description is the sole source of behavioral info. It states the tool returns confidence, formula, and evidence spans, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose error behavior, permissions, rate limits, or what happens for invalid metrics, leaving gaps in the expected behavior.

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 one short sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose and outputs. Every word earns its place, and there is no 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 tool with three parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is too thin. It omits what values 'metric' accepts, what 'limit' controls, and the structure of the returned explanation, leaving agents to guess both input and output contracts.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It implies that 'metric' names a teacher metric and 'teacher_id' identifies the teacher, but it never explains the meaning or format of 'limit'. The description adds only minimal disambiguation and fails to clarify parameter usage.

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 names a specific verb ('explain'), resource ('teacher metric'), and the key outputs ('confidence, formula and exact evidence spans'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that retrieve analytics or reviews, since it explains the score's provenance rather than merely returning it.

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 offers no guidance on when to prefer this tool over siblings like get_teacher_analytics or get_rating_history. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, forcing the agent to infer appropriateness.

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