Get efficiency scorecard

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds value by detailing the score dimensions and tracking over time. But it does not disclose potential performance impact, data freshness, or limitations, which is acceptable given the read-only nature.

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 well-organized with a clear introductory paragraph, bullet points for scope options, and code-block examples. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary verbosity.

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 no output schema, the description effectively explains the return structure (score, grade, dimensions, trend). It is complete for a simple retrieval tool, though it could mention that results include historical tracking.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by explaining each parameter (scope, team, environment, provider) with default values and examples. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema titles.

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 it provides a FinOps efficiency scorecard with a 0–100 score and letter grade across 5 dimensions, tracked over time. This specificity and inclusion of dimensions distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_costs_by_team or get_rightsizing_recommendations.

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 provides explicit scope options (overall, team, environment, provider) and examples of queries. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, though the context from sibling tools implies its use case.

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