Get an Agent Readiness report card

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the artifact is 'published' and includes policy identity, provenance, and canonical URL, which is mild extra context but does not disclose auth needs, rate limits, or failure behavior.

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?

It is a single dense sentence, but a long tail enumerates returned fields (findings, blockers, remediations, tested surfaces, evidence state, coverage, freshness) that an output schema already covers. That list crowds out the resolution logic the sentence should emphasize.

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?

With an output schema present, the return-value enumeration is unnecessary, and the low param coverage is only partially offset. The essentials for correct invocation (one key vs entity+product+funnel) are present, but nothing tells the agent when this tool beats its siblings.

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 only 25%, so the schema leaves funnel and product essentially undocumented. The description compensates by explaining the two mutually exclusive resolution modes — profile ID alone, or Entity with exact product and funnel — which meaningfully constrains how the four parameters combine.

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 states a specific verb and resource — 'Get one exact published Agent Readiness report card' — and scopes it to a single record, which implicitly separates it from the sibling search_readiness. It never names the sibling, so the differentiation must be inferred rather than read.

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 second sentence gives the two resolution paths (immutable profile ID, or Entity plus exact product and funnel), which is useful invocation guidance. However, it offers no explicit when-to-use/when-not framing versus search_readiness or inspect_evidence, leaving the choice to inference.

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