Score metadata

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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description's addition of 'cleaned' is vague and does not disclose any further behavioral traits (e.g., rate limits, authentication needs, or side effects). It neither contradicts the annotations nor adds meaningful beyond-safety context, so the description under-delivers.

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 with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the action and resource, includes a concrete example, and leaves no room for ambiguity. Perfectly concise.

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 simple metadata retrieval tool with one parameter and an existing output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the core intent and the parameter usage. A deduction is warranted because it doesn't mention any potential errors or special cases, but given the simplicity, these are not critical.

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% because the parameter lacks a description field, so the description must compensate. The phrase 'by its ID' and the example 'PGS000001' imply the expected format, offering some semantic value. However, it could be more explicit about the required pattern or additional constraints, though this minimal compensation is adequate for a single-parameter tool.

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 retrieves cleaned metadata for a single PGS score by ID, using a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('metadata for a single PGS score'). It differentiates from siblings like 'search_scores' by focusing on a single known ID rather than searching, and gives an example ID format for clarity.

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—when you have a specific PGS ID and need metadata—but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like 'search_scores' or mention any exclusions. The example ID provides a hint but no explicit when-to-use guidance.

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