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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe, non-persisting nature is covered. The phrase 'non-persisting readiness check' adds context about side effects, but the description does not disclose output behavior or other operational details like error handling or thresholds.

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?

The description is a single, compact sentence that front-loads the core action and context. No redundant wording or unnecessary detail, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 six required parameters and no output schema, the description is too terse to fully contextualize the tool. It does not explain what the parameters signify, what readiness criteria are evaluated, or what the return value represents, leaving major gaps for an agent selecting and invoking the tool.

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 the description provides no explanation of the six parameters. The names alone (e.g., 'accountable_human_controller') hint at meaning, but the description neither lists them nor clarifies how they influence the readiness check, failing 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?

The description clearly states the tool runs a non-persisting readiness check before collecting or validating a complete AFA pitch. It uses a specific verb ('run') and resource ('readiness check'), and distinguishes from siblings like validate_agent_pitch by positioning it as a pre-validation step.

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?

The description provides explicit temporal context: use this tool 'before collecting or validating a complete AFA pitch.' It implies the tool is for preliminary checks rather than full validation, but it does not name alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use it.

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