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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds workflow context (this runs post-remediation), but says nothing about how a mismatch is reported or what happens when the expected value isn't found, leaving the observable behavior partly opaque.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the when/when-not condition. No filler or restatement of the title.

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 read-only verification tool with a fully documented schema, the definition covers the essential precondition and purpose. It doesn't clarify the shape of the result (e.g., pass/fail vs. diff against 'expected'), which is the one remaining gap given there is no output schema.

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%, with enums documented for 'check' and 'format', so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description adds no additional syntax or semantics for 'expected' or 'format' beyond what the schema states; baseline 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?

States a specific verb and object ('Re-check a specific security control') plus the goal ('confirm the finding is now resolved'), which cleanly separates it from the sibling check_* tools that perform initial inspection. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition ('only when a fix has already been applied') and an explicit exclusion ('not for initial inspection of a record'). It doesn't name a concrete alternative such as check_dmarc or scan_domain, so the routing is implied rather than fully spelled out.

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