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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds real behavioral detail the annotations do not carry — the extraction pattern (cs-/csh- IDs), the counts_as_verified requirement, conditional freshness when fresh_within is supplied, and the specific failure mode it flags (host reported live/fixed/deployed without a verified receipt). It does not say what the response looks like, which matters since there is no output schema.

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?

One dense, front-loaded sentence — purpose first, then the mechanics in a logical extract/verify/flag order. The parentheticals ('e.g. message to user', the ID prefixes) are load-bearing, though the sentence is long enough that a reader must parse carefully.

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?

For a read-only, 3-parameter check with no nested objects, the description covers trigger, inputs, internal checks, and flagged conditions. The main omission is the shape of the result — since there is no output schema, an agent cannot tell whether it gets a pass/fail boolean, a list of violations, or both.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description goes beyond by explaining the conditional effect of fresh_within ('and fresh if fresh_within is passed'), which the schema only describes as a duration window. It does not explain what 'agent' actually changes about ID resolution, leaving one parameter under-elaborated.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('check a draft status report before sending') and then spells out the three concrete operations: extract cited claim IDs and hostnames, verify claims, flag unsupported host claims. That is far more specific than the sibling verbs (verify_claim, submit_claim) and lets an agent distinguish it from a per-claim verifier.

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 phrase 'before sending' plus 'draft status report (e.g. message to user)' gives a clear trigger condition and scope. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g. 'use verify_claim for a single claim, not this'), so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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