get_contributor_score

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states 'A contributor's CLV record,' which neither confirms nor denies side effects, return format, errors, or read-only behavior. It doesn't say whether it's a read operation, whether it might fail, or what output to expect. This is essentially a placeholder and provides no behavioral transparency.

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 a single short sentence, which is concise, but it is under-specified. There is no structure—no front-loaded action, no breaking into components. It is more of a label than a usable description. Conciseness is good, but it sacrifices necessary detail.

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 low complexity (1 parameter) and no output schema, the description should compensate by explaining the meaning of CLV, the return value, and when to use it. It does none of that. The description is far from complete for an agent to correctly invoke this tool, especially among many similar-looking 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?

The schema has a single parameter, contributor_id, with 0% schema description coverage. The tool description does not elaborate on what contributor_id means, what format it should be in, or how it relates to the CLV record. The parameter is self-explanatory from its name, but the description adds no semantic value beyond the schema field name.

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 'A contributor's CLV record.' is a noun phrase that vaguely indicates the tool returns some kind of record, but it doesn't explicitly state an action like 'get' or 'retrieve'. It fails to differentiate from sibling tools such as get_track_record or get_predictions, which also likely return records. The purpose is not fully clear—what is a CLV record and what does the agent do with it?

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or conditions under which an agent should select this tool. With 12 sibling tools, the lack of any usage direction is a significant gap.

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