getScorecardInfo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states this is a retrieval operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the ID is invalid. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence clearly states the purpose, followed by a structured 'Args:' section that efficiently documents the parameter. There is no wasted text, and every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter), no annotations, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose and parameter semantics adequately. However, it could improve by adding more behavioral context, such as error handling or usage guidelines relative to siblings.

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 description adds meaningful semantics beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'id' is 'The unique ID of the scorecard,' clarifying its purpose and format. With only one parameter and no schema descriptions, this compensates well, though it could provide more context (e.g., where to find the ID).

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 verb ('Retrieve details') and resource ('about a specific scorecard'), and specifies what details are included ('its defined levels and checks'). It distinguishes from listScorecards by focusing on a single scorecard rather than listing multiple. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other get* siblings like getEntityDetails beyond the resource type.

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 by specifying 'a specific scorecard' and the required ID parameter, suggesting this is for retrieving details of a known scorecard. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus listScorecards (for listing all scorecards) or other get* tools, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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