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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces the non-publishing nature while adding real behavioral context: the return value includes per-page interpretation and error line locations with remediation hints, and the tool is meant to be called iteratively. It doesn't discuss size limits or how warnings differ from ERRORs, which keeps it short of a 5.

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, front-loaded with what the tool does, then what it returns, then the workflow. No filler, no repetition of the title, and each sentence carries distinct information.

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 single-string validation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, return shape, and the retry/publish workflow, which is essentially everything needed to call it correctly. Minor gaps remain around error severity semantics and any input size constraints, but the schema's maxLength and format prose compensate.

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 coverage is 100% and the text parameter's schema description already enumerates the Notematics syntax, fences, blocks and marks in detail. The tool description adds no additional meaning about the text parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Checks a board text') and immediately scopes it against the sibling publish_board by saying 'without publishing it'. It also describes the output shape — parsed page-by-page understanding plus errors with line numbers — so an agent can distinguish it from read_board or publish_board without opening a 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?

Gives an explicit loop: fix every ERROR, call check_board again, and when there are no errors call publish_board. The condition that selects the alternative tool is named directly, leaving nothing to inference about when to stop checking and start publishing.

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