Explain an indicator

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral burden. It thoroughly discloses what the tool returns, including explicit mention of 'what the score cannot tell you,' which goes beyond a simple read operation and sets expectations well.

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 primary action ('Return the full rubric for one indicator') and each subsequent phrase adds value (lists components, states when to use). No wasted words or redundancy.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is fully complete: it lists all rubric components, states the use case, and even mentions the limitations. There are no ambiguous aspects left for an agent to resolve.

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?

The input schema already documents the only parameter 'indicator' with an enum and description 'Which indicator.' Schema description coverage is 100%, so the description adds no additional parameter-level detail needed. The tool's main text focuses on output, not parameter syntax, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 returns a full rubric for one indicator and enumerates its contents (measures, evidence, anchors, thresholds, limitations, research). This is specific and distinct from sibling tools like score_conversation or extract_evidence, which have different purposes.

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 explicitly says 'Use whenever someone asks what a score means or challenges one,' providing a clear trigger. It does not list when not to use it or point to alternatives, but given the unique purpose among siblings, this is adequate.

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