Device experience score and details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds value by enumerating the returned fields, including the score health enum values (0-3), which gives the agent expectations about output structure. No contradictions with annotations.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then lists the returned data without unnecessary words. It is concise and information-dense.

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 read-only tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what it retrieves, the specific fields, and the score health semantics. It does not explain failure scenarios, but the annotations and schema provide sufficient context for invocation.

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 input schema contains detailed descriptions for both parameters (scoreProfileId, agentResourceId), including how to obtain them. With 100% schema coverage, the description need not repeat this. The tool description adds minimal extra parameter context beyond the schema, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 begins with a specific verb ('Retrieves') and states the exact resource: 'DEX experience overview for one device under a score profile'. It distinguishes from sibling tools by emphasizing 'one device', which contrasts with metrics or latest scores tools. The listed fields further clarify the scope.

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 clearly implies the tool is for a single device's experience overview, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it. Sibling tools like dex_device_experience_metrics exist, but no comparison is made. Usage context is present but not fully explicit.

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