beaconed_scores_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral context. It usefully discloses that the endpoint is 'SPEC-ABSENT' and advises verifying availability, which is valuable. The GET/list wording implies a read operation, but it does not address auth, rate limits, response shape, or pagination 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 a single sentence that front-loads the action and resource, includes the endpoint, and places the spec-absence caveat at the end. Every part earns its place with no unnecessary wording.

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 schema fully documents all parameters, and the spec-absence warning is a useful caveat. However, the description does not guide selection among sibling tools or describe return format, and with no output schema or annotations, an agent has limited context beyond the schema.

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 has 100% description coverage for all five parameters, so the schema fully documents parameter meaning. The description adds no additional parameter-level context, leaving the baseline score of 3 appropriate.

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 verb 'list' and the resource 'readiness scores across all products,' making the core action unambiguous. It also signals scope by saying 'across all products,' which distinguishes it from product-specific sibling tools, though it does not explicitly name any alternatives.

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 'across all products' implies this is for listing scores at an aggregate level, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings like beaconed_scores_latest or beaconed_products_scores. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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