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

With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, the description still adds real context: it is read-only, returns no credentials, and specifies the verdict shape (names missing, modified and unexpected paths, each with expected sha256). That is meaningful behavioral disclosure 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?

Front-loads the core action ('Check ... FILES ON DISK are byte-perfect') and stays to a few dense sentences. The parenthetical endpoint and the trailing 'read-only; returns no credentials' are useful, though the sentence is somewhat packed with clauses.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains the verdict's contents and the meaning of a pass, plus the read-only/credential-free safety profile. An agent has what it needs to call this correctly and interpret the result.

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 schema already documents all four parameters (files with path/sha256, runtime enum, repair_steps, installed_version). The description reinforces the runtime and byte-perfect intent but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (verify) plus a precise resource and scope: a Boosthis kit's files ON DISK, byte-perfect. Combined with the HTTPS endpoint disclosure and the 'pass proves the files, never that anything is measured yet' qualifier, an agent can distinguish this file-integrity check from siblings like get_integration_kit or check_for_update without opening any 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?

Names an alternative access path (the same check over plain HTTPS) and clarifies the semantic limit of a pass, which guides interpretation. It stops short of stating explicit when-to-use vs when-not conditions relative to related siblings such as check_for_update or release_check, so it is clear context rather than full routing guidance.

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