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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavior disclosure. It discloses cost ('PAID'), the verification nature ('Check', 'Report', 'get back'), and the specific failure categories it detects. It does not explicitly state whether files are modified, but the check/report language strongly implies a non-destructive audit, which is sufficient.

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?

The description is dense but not bloated; every clause carries information. It front-loads the critical cost warning and the core purpose. The sentence structure is slightly complex with em-dash interruptions, which prevents a perfect score, but there is no 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?

Given the 4-parameter nested schema and no output schema, the description adequately explains the expected inputs and the shape of the response (missing files, altered copy-verbatim files, absent packages, config merge status). It omits explicit notes on side effects or prerequisites beyond having emitted an app, but the overall picture is complete enough 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 coverage is 75%, and the description adds meaningful context: what to report ('file paths with byte sizes, your package.json dependencies, and the project config') and what the tool returns. It also explains the purpose of the parameters by linking them to the verification outcomes. This goes beyond the schema's bare parameter names.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Check that an emitted app was actually applied correctly.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling emit_app by stating its verification role, and even names the preceding step ('emitted app') and timing ('before building'). The scope is unambiguous.

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?

It gives clear context: use after emitting an app and before building it. It does not explicitly compare against check_snippet or other siblings, but the workflow position is unmistakable. The description implies no alternative beyond immediate verification, which is adequate for this tool.

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