score_sessions

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It describes that logistics events are filtered out, and the output includes a scoring rubric. It does not cover potential side effects like rate limits or authentication, but is fairly transparent for a read-only 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?

Description is well-structured with a clear summary, an Args section, and a Returns section. It is slightly lengthy but every sentence adds value. Could be trimmed slightly but remains effective.

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 (9 parameters, scoring logic), the description is complete. It explains the filtering of logistics events, the scoring rubric, and the output structure. The presence of an output schema reduces the need for detailed return value explanation, but the description still covers the key aspects.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter in detail: e.g., 'comma-separated interests', 'boost hands-on workshops', 'penalize vendor-heavy marketing sessions.' This adds substantial meaning beyond the input schema.

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?

Clearly states it 'gets sessions ready for personalized scoring' and 'returns scorable sessions along with a scoring rubric.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_schedule and search_sessions by focusing on scoring rather than just listing or filtering.

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?

Explicitly tells the AI agent to 'apply the rubric to rank sessions for the attendee.' It implies this tool is for scoring, not just browsing, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use.

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