score_options

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the output: 'full normalized scored matrix + ranking', and explicitly states what is not returned ('without the narrative winner explanation'). This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond input schema, though it doesn't mention normalization details or side effects (which are likely none for a scoring tool).

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, front-loaded with the action verb 'Score', and every word adds value. It states the purpose, a condition, and the output, with zero redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 complexity (nested objects, 4 params, no output schema), the description covers the essential purpose and return format (normalized matrix + ranking). It doesn't explain method-specific behavior or the ranking structure, but that is likely out of scope for a brief description. It is sufficiently complete for an AI to select and invoke correctly in most cases.

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 description coverage is 75%, so the schema already documents most parameters (options, criteria with direction and weight, scores matrix). The description adds a small but useful nuance: 'when the score matrix is supplied separately', clarifying the scores parameter's role. However, it doesn't elaborate on the method parameter or how criteria directions affect scoring, which the schema partially covers. This earns a solid baseline 3.

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 tool's function with a specific verb 'Score' and resource 'options against criteria'. It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying the separate score matrix input and the exclusion of narrative explanation, making its scope unambiguous.

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 gives a clear condition for use: 'when the score matrix is supplied separately', which implies when to apply this tool. It also implicitly contrasts with a version that includes narrative winner explanation, but it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions. This is solid guidance but not exhaustive.

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