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

Beyond the annotations it discloses the actual mechanics: Flowlines runs its own check, a fully passing check completes the action, otherwise nothing changes, and unmet criteria are surfaced. It also explains that checks read persisted state, so a code change only passes after deployment and re-read — a genuinely non-obvious dependency that annotations alone could not convey.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and the following sentences each carry distinct information: success/failure semantics, the persisted-state caveat, and the manual-action exception. It is a dense block rather than scannable, but no sentence is filler.

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, return values need not be explained, and the description still covers the success/failure outcome model and the criterion-state reporting. For a 4-required-parameter verification tool with annotations, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 100% and every parameter is documented in-schema (reason, action_id sourced from list_actions or an app prompt, user_intent stability, namespace UUID). The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb and resource — re-check a Flowlines action after work is finished and report the outcome — which is clearly distinct from get_action (read) and prepare_action. It never names those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Timing guidance is explicit ('when you finish work on it'), and an exclusion is given: manual actions are not checked because the user marks them done in the Flowlines app. It stops short of naming which sibling to call instead (e.g., get_action for a passive read), which keeps it off a 5.

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