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

Annotations already mark this read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds substantive behavioral detail beyond that: it names the exact return fields, explains that repair_steps: true returns ordered steps, and discloses that kit_download_url is a plain-HTTPS address serving the identical complete kit JSON for the same project key. This is unusually transparent for a read-only check.

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 and front-loaded with the main purpose, and almost every clause carries useful information. It loses a point because it repeats the full runtime enum that the schema already defines, and the single run-on sentence is harder to parse than a short structured break-down would be.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the full burden of explaining return values; it does so thoroughly, including the verdict, changed content, repair steps, and download URL. It also covers parameter format edge cases and a practical download-URL use case. For a non-destructive three-parameter check, this is complete.

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%, so the baseline should be 3. The description adds real value by explaining how installed_version should be expressed differently per runtime (package.json vs RUNTIME_VERSION / RuntimeVersion), and by tying repair_steps to the output shape. That extra semantic clarification justifies a 4.

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 names the operation ('Whether a newer Boosthis kit exists'), the resource (the kit for THIS project), and the main outcome (a behind/current/ahead verdict plus latest_version). It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like boosthis_release_check or boosthis_verify_kit, so it misses the full top score, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 gives clear context for when to call it: you want to know whether a newer kit exists for the current project and what updating would involve. It also adds a special use case (missing or truncated files, regardless of version). It never says when not to use it or points to an alternative tool, 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.