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

The description adds real context beyond annotations: it requires an agent key with write scope, notes an owner-scope variant, and states that each check returns passed/not plus remediation advice. That explains why readOnlyHint=false for something called a "check" and gives the agent the output shape. It stops short of saying whether the call mutates the site or what rate/network cost to expect.

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?

Two dense sentences: capability first, prerequisite second, with no filler. It is slightly compressed by jargon, but nothing is redundant.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema and annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description supplies the pieces an agent needs: what is checked, what comes back (per-check verdicts and fixes), and the credential requirement. Nothing material is missing.

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?

With a single zero-required parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents trooth_id including the default-to-own-company behaviour. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

It names a specific verb (runs checks) and resource (the live site) and enumerates the three checks: markdown-on-request, the signature, and the two well-known files. It is clear it is a site-installation checker, though the shorthand ("markdown on request", "the signature") assumes familiarity and it does not distinguish itself from near-neighbours such as semanto_install_guide or semanto_keys_binding_check.

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 only implied: an agent can infer it should call this when verifying a live site installation is correct. There is no explicit when/when-not guidance and no routing to alternatives (install guide, binding check, listings check), which is a notable gap given how many similarly named check tools exist among the siblings.

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