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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It never says whether verification mutates anything, requires specific permissions, what a pass/fail outcome looks like, or how failures are reported. The gate list does convey what is inspected, which is modest added value beyond the name.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately tight, though the density of the gate list slightly obscures the core verb resource pair.

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 two untyped required object parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the definition is far too thin. An agent cannot construct a valid 'candidate' or 'checks' payload from this 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and both required parameters ('candidate', 'checks') are opaque nested objects with no defined properties. The description does not explain how to structure either object or what the 'checks' keys should be, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 (verify) and a specific resource (a candidate execution) against named gate categories, so the purpose is legible. However it offers no differentiation from siblings like object_contract_check, which on its face could plausibly cover overlapping 'contract' verification territory.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling to prefer. The gate taxonomy hints at scope but provides no routing guidance or prerequisites.

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