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

Annotations already carry readOnly, idempotent, and destructive hints, so the description earns credit for adding the auth requirement (needs the user's Rhylthyme account) and clarifying the output purpose (findings to show the user). 'Changes nothing' reinforces the read-only behavior without contradicting annotations.

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 sentences, each earning its place: the action and examples, the side-effect/return behavior, and the auth prerequisite. The most important information is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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 read-only review tool with a well-described input schema, the description covers purpose, non-mutation, auth, and the broad return type. It does not specify the structure of findings or the required relationship between program and source_url/source_text, but the annotations and schema cover most of the remaining operational context.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description hints that source_url/source_text are the comparison source, but it does not add parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: a model reads an imported program against its source and reports what looks wrong. Concrete examples (dropped steps, overlapping chains, disagreements) make the tool's function unambiguous and distinguish it from import/validate siblings.

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 context: use after import, with a source available, and requires the user's Rhylthyme account. It does not explicitly name alternatives like validate_program or state when not to use this tool, so the routing guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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