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

Annotations already mark the tool readOnly, and the description adds useful behavioral context: it does not rank or determine compliance, it relies on Bidda's dependency graph and registry state, and it requires an active subscription. This meaningfully supplements the annotation-only safety profile.

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The description is dense but efficient: it explains the exact gap semantics, the withdrawn-rule addition, the tool's non-decision role, and the subscription requirement in two sentences. A small amount of editorial emphasis (the parenthetical gap label and dashes) could be trimmed, but no content is wasted.

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?

Given the modest complexity and an absent output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's returned content and its scope. It does not detail error conditions or response shape, but for a read-only coverage aid with fully documented parameters, this is a reasonable level of completeness.

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 already documents all three parameters at 100% coverage, including depth behavior, node_ids, and api_key header precedence. The description adds only the subscription requirement and a slight incentive to pass api_key, but the schema carries the semantic weight. This aligns with the baseline 3 for full 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 operation (return prerequisite-rule gaps) and names the exact output: covered rules in Bidda's dependency graph that are missing from the team's list, plus covered rules marked withdrawn. This distinguishes it from sibling compliance tools like check_action_compliance and drift_check, which address different compliance questions.

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 clearly frames the tool as a coverage aid for a qualified reviewer and explicitly excludes ranking or determining compliance. It implies the right context: check missing prerequisite obligations after a team provides its covered rules. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, so it stops short of a 5.

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