Generalization error predictors (GEPs) aim to predict model performance on unseen distributions by deriving dataset-level error estimates from sample-level scores. However, GEPs often utilize disparate mechanisms (e.g., regressors, thresholding functions, calibration datasets, etc), to derive such error estimates, which can obfuscate the benefits of a particular scoring function. Therefore, in this work, we rigorously study the effectiveness of popular scoring functions (confidence, local manifold smoothness, model agreement), independent of mechanism choice. We find, absent complex mechanisms, that state-of-the-art confidence- and smoothness- based scores fail to outperform simple model-agreement scores when estimating error under distribution shifts and corruptions. Furthermore, on realistic settings where the training data has been compromised (e.g., label noise, measurement noise, undersampling), we find that model-agreement scores continue to perform well and that ensemble diversity is important for improving its performance. Finally, to better understand the limitations of scoring functions, we demonstrate that simplicity bias, or the propensity of deep neural networks to rely upon simple but brittle features, can adversely affect GEP performance. Overall, our work carefully studies the effectiveness of popular scoring functions in realistic settings and helps to better understand their limitations.