get_scorecard

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the '[free]' prefix discloses cost, and it explains the tool's purpose (showing past performance rather than producing a verdict). No contradiction with annotations exists.

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?

Three sentences with efficient, front-loaded content: the deliverable first, then the use case, then the differentiator. The '[free]' prefix adds brief cost info without bloat. Slightly unusual placement of '[free]' but no 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 zero-parameter read-only tool with an output schema present, the description covers the essentials: what it returns, when to use it, and why it exists. Minor gaps exist — 'risk band' and 'collapse' are domain terms not defined — but for a niche tool they are likely understood in context. The presence of the output schema reduces the burden to explain return format.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema coverage, so the baseline of 4 applies — there is nothing to document, and the description correctly avoids inventing parameter details. No additional parameter semantics are needed.

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 states the specific resource (measured hit rate per risk band) and the exact content (hit rates and collapse speed per band). It clearly differentiates from siblings by noting 'Most risk APIs ask you to trust a score; this one shows how it performed,' positioning it as a performance/transparency tool rather than a scoring API like check_token or token_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?

'Read this to decide how much weight to give our verdicts' provides a clear, actionable use case — the agent knows to call this when calibrating trust in other verdict outputs. However, it doesn't name explicit alternatives or state when NOT to use it, leaving a small gap in guidance.

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