scorecard_top

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

The annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context on ranking semantics but does not disclose other behavioral aspects such as pagination, result limits, or data source details. It does not contradict the annotations, so a 3 is appropriate for adding some value beyond the structured metadata.

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 extremely concise, with two sentences that front-load the primary purpose and then detail the ranking metrics. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or irrelevant content.

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 straightforward tool with four parameters, no output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains the ranking meanings and implies the return of top-ranked institutions. Minor gaps like default ordering or result limits are not critical given the tool's simplicity and the annotations covering safety.

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%, with descriptions for all parameters. The description significantly enriches the 'ranking' parameter by explaining what each enum value means (earnings, graduation, expensive), which the schema does not provide. This added meaning goes beyond the basic parameter name and justifies a score above the baseline.

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 purpose: 'Get top-ranked colleges by earnings, graduation rate, or lowest cost.' It also clarifies the ranking metrics (e.g., 'earnings' means highest median pay 10 years after entry). However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like scorecard_search or scorecard_compare, which weakens differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any selection criteria or contrast with the other scorecard tools, leaving the agent to infer that this is for ranked lists rather than detailed searches or comparisons.

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