Latest experience score for a profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds useful behavioral details: the health scale (0 poor, 1 average, 2 good, 3 unknown), inclusion of baseline and daily change, and per-category breakdowns. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 two sentences with a front-loaded purpose and no filler. The first sentence compactly lists return components, and the second adds optional scoping. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is highly efficient.

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 there is no output schema, the description adequately covers return values (overall, health, baseline, change, per-category) and scoping options. It doesn't mention pagination or error handling, but for a single-latest-score tool this is acceptable. It could be a 5 if it explicitly distinguished from sibling DEX tools to aid selection.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds semantic value by grouping the optional parameters as mutually exclusive scope choices ('a single device, a remote office, or a custom group'), which clarifies their relationship. It also reinforces that scoreProfileId is the required anchor.

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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieves') and clearly identifies the resource ('latest DEX experience score for a score profile'), along with a detailed list of contents (overall score, health, baseline, change, per-category). While it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like dex_device_experience, the 'latest' qualifier and field listing give a clear purpose.

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 context (for retrieving the most recent score) and mentions optional scoping, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. With sibling tools like dex_device_experience_metrics present, explicit differentiation would be helpful, but the implied usage is clear enough.

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