Score an agent run provisionally

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the main behavioral risk (side effects) is covered. The description adds important trust context: the result is unverified and must not be the sole basis for autonomy decisions.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the function and closed with a high-value caution. No filler.

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 tool with 8 required parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is too thin: it omits how the score is computed or returned, what evidence/control data is expected, and how it relates to evaluation_scorecard. The 'never use alone' warning is valuable but does not make the tool fully callable without further context.

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 0%, and the description only groups parameters into broad categories ('outcome, evidence, control and correction cost') rather than explaining individual required inputs. With 8 required parameters and no property descriptions, the prose does not compensate enough for an agent to know parameter-specific meanings or formats.

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 names a concrete action ('Create an unverified self-assessment') and a specific subject ('of outcome, evidence, control and correction cost'), so an agent can tell it is a scoring tool. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling evaluation_scorecard, though 'unverified' hints at a provisional role.

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 explicit warning 'Never use it alone to grant autonomy' is a clear when-not-to-use signal and a behavioral boundary. No sibling alternative is named, and there is no positive trigger condition, so it falls short of a full routing guide.

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