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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses a real behavioral trait beyond the schema: the credit cost model ('Costs 2 credits, charged only when it returns'). But it does not state whether the tool mutates anything, what permissions are needed, or what the pass/fail result looks like, leaving significant gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then the gate list, then the prerequisite and cost. The long gate enumeration earns its place since it tells the agent exactly what will be checked, though it is dense enough that a slightly tighter grouping would help.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must cover return behavior; it says the check 'returns' and charges credits, but never describes the result shape (per-gate pass/fail, messages). Combined with thin parameter coverage, it is adequate on purpose but incomplete on inputs and outputs.

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 0% across 4 parameters, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the 'facts' parameter's provenance (the facts content_brief returned) and implies 'markdown' is the draft, but it never explains the 'type' enum values or the 'title' parameter, leaving half the inputs undocumented in both schema and prose.

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 ('Run the gates on a local draft') and enumerates exactly what is validated: fabrication, unsupported claims, disparagement, duplication, placeholders, banned words, dashes, answer-first opening, headings, length, links. An agent can tell this is a pre-publication linting/QA tool distinct from content generation or research siblings.

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?

Gives clear context ('before the PR') and a workflow prerequisite ('Pass the facts content_brief returned'), which ties it to a sibling tool. It does not, however, name any alternative check tool or state when not to use it, so it falls short of explicit when/when-not guidance.

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