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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fully explains the tool's operation: it is an automated cross-validation, read-only in nature (returns results), not a compatibility ruling, and it identifies unverifiable entries and gaps. It also states the intended follow-up (manual evidence completion), providing rich context beyond a simple 'returns audit results'.

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 consists of three sentences, each adding valuable information: what it returns, what it is not, and what it is for. While not as terse as a two-sentence ideal, every sentence earns its place and there is no redundancy.

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 a single optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main output categories (verifiable, unverifiable, gaps, coverage) and clarifies the non-goal (compatibility ruling). It lacks explicit detail about the exact report structure or response format, but this is not critical given the simple parameter and the thorough narrative description.

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?

The input schema already provides a 100% documented parameter with an enum and default ('scope: all/conflicts'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no specific parameter-level semantics beyond the overall purpose, but that is acceptable given the schema coverage is complete.

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 returns cross-validation results between standard registration forms and entity declarations, specifying what it verifies (mechanical/bus declarations) and what it indicates (gaps, coverage). It explicitly distinguishes itself from compatibility checks by stating 'not a compatibility ruling', which separates it from siblings like bom_compatibility_check and check_compatibility.

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 provides clear context for use: it is a data quality self-check, not a compatibility ruling, and its purpose is to flag entries with questionable provenance for manual evidence completion. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools to use instead (e.g., check_compatibility), leaving the when-not-to-use partially implied.

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