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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description is consistent with a read-only reporting tool. The description adds context about the coverage matrix output and the strategic benefit, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as limitations, data sources, or performance characteristics. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is a baseline score.

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 four sentences, front-loading the core purpose before output details and usage guidance. Each sentence contributes useful information, though the final sentence about 'beautiful reports' is slightly promotional and could be trimmed without losing essential guidance.

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 tool with full schema documentation and an output schema, the description provides sufficient context to select and invoke the tool correctly. It explains when to use it, what it returns, and why it matters, making it self-sufficient for an agent to understand its role.

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%, with both parameters (themes and archives) already well-documented. The description only restates that it takes a list of themes, adding no new semantic detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies because the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 clearly states the tool reports which themes are well-evidenced versus under-evidenced or missing, with a specific output format. It distinguishes itself from archive_report_brief and brief_forensic by positioning as a pre-flight check, but does not explicitly differentiate from the similarly named sibling archive_evidence_gap.

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 description explicitly instructs to use this tool BEFORE building an archive_report_brief or brief_forensic, providing strong contextual timing. It also explains the rationale (preventing reports that ignore evidence gaps). However, it does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools like archive_evidence_gap.

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