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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the bar is lower; the description still adds value with the cost signal ("Free") and the sequencing fact that publish re-runs these checks. It stops short of describing what a blocker or check result looks like.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and output, then the sequencing rule, then the cost/no-side-effect note. Nothing is padded or repeated.

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 only two well-documented parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description covers what is needed to call it correctly and names what comes back ("authoritative checks"). It could say more about result shape (per-check pass/fail, blocker severity), which is the only remaining gap.

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% and both parameters are documented, including the enum for scope. The description's "rev from soclo_page_get" and "draft or a publish" only restate what the schema already says, adding no format or constraint detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: diagnose a site revision and return the authoritative checks, applicable to a draft or a publish. That separates it from the mutating siblings soclo_page_publish and soclo_page_save, though it does not contrast with similarly named read tools like soclo_page_scan or soclo_page_preview.

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?

"Resolve blockers before publishing" gives a clear call condition, and "publishing runs these checks again" tells the agent the check is a pre-step rather than a substitute. No explicit when-not-to-use or named alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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