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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool outputs a trajectory with specific time points and a trend, but it omits crucial behavior such as whether the operation is read-only, what data sources are used, or any limitations. This is insufficient for an agent to understand side effects or context.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently lists the time horizons and trend. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool, though the lack of detail limits usefulness. No wasted words, but the terseness borders on under-specification.

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?

The tool has only one parameter and no annotations or output schema, but the description still leaves critical gaps: what 'score' refers to, how entity_id should be formatted, and what the response structure looks like. Given the numerous similar sibling tools, this lack of context makes the tool difficult to select and invoke correctly.

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 only parameter, entity_id, is not explained in the description at all. With 0% schema description coverage, the meaning of entity_id remains completely undefined, leaving the agent to guess what identifier to provide. The description fails to add any value beyond the bare schema property.

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 'Score trajectory: current, 7d, 14d, 30d, 60d, 90d with trend' indicates the tool provides a score over time intervals, but it does not specify what entity or score type it applies to. It is distinguishable from siblings like predict_article and predict_entity only by the generic term 'score', leaving ambiguity about the resource being scored.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not state when to use this tool instead of alternatives like trend_analysis or risk_forecast, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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