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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results include remediation guidance, which is useful, but says nothing about filtering behavior or result ordering beyond what the schema and output schema already carry.

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 tightly written sentences with no filler; the purpose leads and the usage cue follows. Every clause 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?

With an output schema and complete annotations, the description only needs to convey purpose and when to call it, which it does. A brief note that results can be narrowed by mode or category would fully close the loop, but nothing essential is missing.

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% with both enums fully documented, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description never mentions the mode/category filters, so it adds no meaning beyond the structured fields — baseline 3.

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 ('Lists the checks Settlens can report') and details the content of each entry (what it verifies, why it matters, how to fix it). It is clearly distinct from the verify_* siblings, though it names no sibling explicitly to route against.

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?

'Use it to explain a check id returned by another tool' gives an explicit triggering condition and implicitly positions it against the verify_* tools. No when-not or exclusion guidance is given, but the usage context is unambiguous.

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