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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses that it runs one budget model, is free, covers only FLOOR hunks, releases nothing on uncertainty/error, requires both gate_context_id and target_hunk_hashes, explains the deterministic binding of hashes, flags drift without dropping, and notes the diff is never stored. No annotation contradiction.

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 long but front-loaded with purpose and each sentence adds functional detail (binding, conditions, alternatives, parameter usage). It is structured and not repetitive, though it could be trimmed slightly without losing key facts. Still, the density is justified by the tool's complexity.

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 tool with no output schema and six parameters, the description covers the decision logic, required inputs, binding mechanics, failure modes, and sibling routes. An agent can correctly decide when to call it and how to construct the call without missing critical constraints. The only minor omission is what the receipt looks like, but that's not needed for correct invocation.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful semantics: it explains the diff alias precedence, the binding role of target_hunk_hashes, the requirement to forward both id and hashes, and the fact that gate_diff is judged then discarded. These go beyond the schema descriptions, though some redundancy exists.

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 states a specific verb (confirm/clear) and resource (floor-gate block) and explicitly frames it as a cheap second opinion to clear false positives. It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming audit_coding as the alternative for material changes and record_gate_skip for non-floor hunks, leaving no ambiguity about its scope.

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?

It clearly states when to use (floor-class gate fired on token-shape noise), when not to (if material, uncertain, errors, or touches gate's own files → run audit_coding), and explicitly names alternatives for non-floor hunks (record_gate_skip or audit_coding). The conditions are concrete and actionable.

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