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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces it with 'without changing anything' rather than contradicting it. Beyond annotations it discloses the return shape (errors with path, warnings, normalized config) and embedded validation constraints (anomaly-guard mode enum, z_threshold 2–10, min_minutes 1–30, half_life 5–1440), which is exactly the behavior an agent needs to interpret a failed check.

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-loaded with the core action and return contract, with the routing sentence last. The anomaly-guard numeric ranges are dense mid-sentence prose and slightly interrupt the flow, but they carry real information rather than filler.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by describing the return payload (errors with paths, warnings, normalized config). Combined with the sibling routing and domain constraints, an agent has everything needed to call it 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?

Only one parameter, and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage ('the whole odile.yaml ... as text'), so the baseline applies. The description adds useful meaning by specifying that the accepted content includes JSON as well as YAML and by documenting the nested config values that the schema cannot express.

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+resource ('Parse and check a declarative Gate config') and enumerates the config surface it covers (apps, routes, rate limits, run mode, plugins, alerts, approvers). It also names the two siblings it differs from, so an agent can place it 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?

Explicit ordering guidance ('Use it before gate_sync_declarative') and an explicit alternative for a different intent ('to review a live project's settings use gate_check_setup'). Both when-to-use and when-to-use-something-else are stated.

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