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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds non-obvious implementation details: it uses keyword signals rather than a model, reports confidence, and stores nothing, which is valuable beyond the structured annotations.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the description avoids obvious filler. However, the long enumerated sentence is somewhat run-on and packs several ideas together, which slightly hurts readability despite the density being useful.

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, annotation-covered, output-schema-free tool, the description covers what is checked, how confidence is reported, storage behavior, and when to use alternatives. No critical invocation context 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and there is only one parameter, text, which the schema already documents as the author-written task up to 8000 characters. The description does not add syntax, format, or constraints beyond what the schema provides, so this is the minimum viable baseline.

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: read-only check of any task description before starting it. It also names what it checks (goal, acceptance, boundaries, etc.) and distinguishes itself from siblings read_brief and look, so an agent can route correctly.

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?

Explicitly says to use this before starting a task, and gives two alternative tools with conditions: read_brief for tasks already in brief form, and look for seeing who else is on the work. Nothing is left to inference.

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