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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and closed-world, and the description adds real value on top: it enumerates the return payload (status, reasons, verification, sources, canonical URL) despite having no output schema, and states an explicit non-behavior boundary.

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?

Three short sentences with zero padding; the purpose and mechanism are front-loaded, followed by return shape and the scoping exclusion.

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 six-parameter rule-evaluation tool the return composition and boundary are covered, but the complete absence of parameter meaning leaves a material gap that matters for correct invocation.

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 0% and six parameters (cert, dives, site, slug, deep_specialty, last_dive_months) carry no documentation. The description never names or explains any input, so an agent must infer that cert and dive history feed the rules.

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 concrete verb ('check') and resource ('suitability for one plate') plus the rule-based mechanism, and the return contents. It doesn't explicitly name batch_check_suitability as the alternative, so sibling differentiation is only implied by 'one plate'.

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?

Usage is implied — evaluate a single plate's suitability — and the boundary 'does not recommend a centre' tells the agent what this tool won't do. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-to-prefer-batch_check_suitability guidance.

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