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

The description contributes behavioral facts the annotations do not carry: it costs 2 credits and is 'charged only when it returns' — important billing semantics for an agent deciding whether to call it. The annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, but the description never explains why a 'check' tool is not read-only, leaving that trait opaque.

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 purpose, then a compact enumerated list of checks, then two short operational sentences about inputs and cost. The middle enumeration is dense and comma-packed but every item earns its place as gate coverage.

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 usefully enumerates what is checked and discloses cost, giving an agent most of what it needs. It does not describe the return shape (pass/fail vs. list of violations) or whether results differ by content type, which is the main remaining hole for a no-output-schema validator.

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 schema coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it only clarifies the 'facts' parameter via the content_brief reference. The required enum parameter 'type' (answer_page, comparison, alternatives, glossary_term, article) and 'title'/'markdown' get no explanation, even though gate behavior plausibly varies by content type — a real gap versus the 0% schema coverage.

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 before the PR,' then enumerates exactly which gates (fabrication, unsupported claims, disparagement, duplication, placeholders, banned words, dashes, answer-first opening, headings, length, links). That enumeration lets an agent distinguish this validator from content_brief, which it also names as its data source.

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 timing context ('on a local draft before the PR') and specifies the data flow from a named sibling ('Pass the facts content_brief returned'), which is actionable routing guidance. It stops short of stating when *not* to use it or what to do after the PR stage, so it is not quite a full when/when-not pair.

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