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

Beyond the minimal destructiveHint:false annotation, the description thoroughly discloses replacement semantics ('it REPLACES'), verification tiers (VERIFIED vs GREEN), exemption tags, failure output (response names unbacked criteria), and evidence staleness. No contradiction with annotations.

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 dense and information-rich, but formatted as a single run-on paragraph. It front-loads the purpose and then cascades into rules; every sentence earns its place, though bullet points would improve readability.

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 complex tool with 8 parameters, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description covers the full behavioral contract: status semantics, file replacement, evidence verification, exemptions, output behavior, and staleness policy. There are no significant gaps.

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 high, but the description adds critical semantics: files replaces the full set with 'done-but-EMPTY' behavior, evidence requires criterion/proof structure, and passed:true yields the green guarantee. These details go beyond the schema descriptions.

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 opens with 'Report a SYSTEM's status (todo|in-progress|implemented) — DIRECT, live', a specific verb+resource+scope. The allowed statuses are enumerated, and the system focus distinguishes it from sibling tools like report_screen_status.

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?

Provides clear operational rules: 'ALWAYS pass files (full list — it REPLACES)', the empty-state caveat, and the 21-day green staleness re-run instruction. It lacks explicit alternatives or exclusions, but the system-specific scope implies when it applies.

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