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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the key behavior (reporting retired or scheduled status) but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, error handling for invalid IDs, or output format. It adds some context beyond the name but lacks edge-case disclosures.

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 short sentences, no filler. The first sentence combines action and result; the second gives usage guidance. Every word earns its place.

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 simple batch-check tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequately complete. It states the purpose, scope, and typical use case. It lacks details on return format, but that may be clear from the tool's nature.

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?

The schema already documents the single parameter with 100% coverage (up to 100 identifiers). The description merely restates 'many model identifiers,' which adds no new meaning beyond the schema.

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 states the tool's function: checking many model identifiers at once and reporting which are retired or scheduled for retirement. The phrase 'many model identifiers' distinguishes it from the sibling check_model, and the specific outcome (retired or scheduled) clarifies its purpose.

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 provides explicit usage context: 'Use when auditing a codebase or config.' While it doesn't name alternative tools, the context implies a batch check scenario versus a single check_model, offering clear when-to-use guidance.

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