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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so 'does not change input' is largely redundant. The genuinely additive detail is that it returns concrete issues and runs an 'independent' check (no dependence on prior build state), but the format/scope of returned issues is not described.

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?

A single tight sentence that front-loads inputs, then the checks performed, then the return value and the non-mutation guarantee. No filler, though the phrasing bundles four check types into a list without prioritization.

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 no output schema, the description should explain what the returned 'issues' look like (codes, severities, locations), which it doesn't. It is adequate for invocation — the inputs and check scope are clear — but an agent cannot predict the response shape or what happens on a clean scene.

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 50% and the two parameters map directly to 'complete document' and 'optional geometric intent,' which the description restates without adding meaning. The deeply nested intent schema already documents contacts, connections, expectedEntities, and inventoryComplete, so the description needn't repeat them — but it also contributes nothing new about how intent influences the checks.

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 (独立检查/independently check) and enumerates the resources reviewed: component inventory, contacts, track connections, orientation, plus what it returns (specific issues). It distinguishes itself from build/update siblings by emphasizing it does not modify input, though it doesn't name the closest read-only siblings like inspect_scene or analyze_motion.

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?

Usage is implied — pass a full document plus optional geometric intent to validate a scene — but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not, nor a pointer to inspect_scene/analyze_motion as alternatives. An agent must infer the boundary from the siblings' names.

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