get_candidate_scorecard

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it declares read-only, discloses the correlation key (Phase-0 candidate_version_id), and explains that 'best' is resolved against each programme's metric_direction. It omits permissions, emptiness behavior for candidates with no programmes, and cost/rate considerations.

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?

Front-loads the one-line purpose, then the semantics of the report and the parameter scope. Slightly loose line wrapping but every sentence adds information and nothing is redundant padding.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-shape explanation is not required, and the description still sketches the report contents (trial/observation counts, best value per metric). For a two-parameter read tool this leaves little an agent needs uncovered.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, and the description's contract_id wording largely restates the schema text. It adds only modest value by clarifying what 'declared metrics' means (primary + secondary).

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?

States the resource ('descendant quality over attributed programmes') and implies the reporting verb, plus marks it read-only. It is distinguishable from generic siblings like get_candidate or get_candidate_lineage, though it never names an alternative to sharpen the contrast.

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?

Explains the contract_id scoping condition (declared primary+secondary metrics vs all recorded metrics), which is a real usage decision. However it gives no when-to-use vs when-not guidance relative to siblings such as get_candidate_lineage, assess_programme, or list_trials.

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