scorecard_top

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read nature is covered. The description adds context on what each ranking value means (e.g., earnings = median pay 10 years after entry), but does not disclose other behavioral traits like default sorting or result structure.

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 concise, front-loaded, and uses two sentences effectively. The minor inconsistency between 'lowest cost' and 'expensive' prevents a perfect score.

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 description is adequate for a simple list tool but does not explain the response format or clarify the 'lowest cost' vs 'expensive' discrepancy. It also does not provide guidance on combining with other scorecard tools.

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% for all parameters, and the schema describes each field. The description adds valuable semantics for the ranking enum by explaining the meaning of each option, which the schema does not provide.

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 gets top-ranked colleges and explains the ranking metrics, distinguishing it from search/query/compare siblings. However, the phrase 'lowest cost' conflicts with the actual 'expensive' option, causing minor ambiguity.

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 implies usage for retrieving ranked lists and defines the ranking options, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over scorecard_search or scorecard_compare, nor does it mention any exclusions.

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