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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond that: it is a dry-run that persists nothing and returns 'only consumer-provided facts' rather than derived judgments. That is exactly the kind of extra context this dimension rewards.

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?

Four short sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The closing sentence 'Return only consumer-provided facts' is terse to the point of being slightly cryptic, but nothing 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?

With no output schema, the description must carry the return-value burden, and 'Return only consumer-provided facts' only partially does so — it doesn't say what the check result looks like or what a failure signals. Combined with 9 undocumented nested parameters, the definition is adequate to start a call but leaves meaningful gaps.

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?

Nine parameters, several nested (file with mime/size constraints, target with 18 identity fields), at 0% schema description coverage. The description only alludes to 'proposal fields and file metadata' generically and documents no parameter, its format, or which of the many target identity fields matter. It fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 resource: 'Check proposal fields and file metadata before authorization/upload,' and immediately clarifies the scope is validation-only ('No files or reviews are saved'). This distinguishes it from submit_review/upload_evidence siblings, though it never names those siblings explicitly, so an agent must infer the routing.

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 clear timing context ('before authorization/upload') and explicit exclusions of what it will not validate (credentials, receipts, duplicate evidence, approval), which usefully bounds expectations. However, it names no alternative tool and gives no condition for choosing this over prepare_review or submit_review.

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