quality

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read-only operation ('get'), discloses weekly testing frequency, and the grading scheme. This provides reasonable transparency for a simple tool, though it omits details like authentication or output format.

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, compact sentence of 12 words. It front-loads the core purpose and includes relevant context (weekly testing, A-F grades) without any wasted words.

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 no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, the data refresh frequency, and the output format, leaving no obvious gaps for this simple use case.

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 tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100% by default. According to rubric, 0 parameters earns a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter info, which is acceptable given none exist.

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 returns service quality grades, specifying the scope (70 services weekly) and grading scale (A-F). This verb+resource combination is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'compare' or 'market_report'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'stats', 'trends', or 'market_opportunity'. The description implies usage for quality grades but does not explicitly outline context or exclusions.

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