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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description discloses that the operation is free, unmetered, writes nothing, and calls no model. It also specifies exactly what is checked: tool surface vs. tier table, version agreement, subscription-register reachability, catalog/discovery reachability, repository-write authority, and billing wiring.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and output shape, then lists the verification axes, then states side-effect guarantees, then gives usage guidance. Every sentence carries distinct useful information, and the structure is easy for an agent to parse.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains the return shape: one pass/fail/unavailable line per verification axis, with the axis list enumerated. It also covers side effects, cost, model usage, and recommended invocation contexts. An agent has enough information to select and call this tool correctly.

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?

The single optional verbose parameter is already fully described in the input schema with its default and effect. The main description adds context about the per-axis output, which indirectly clarifies what verbose would expand, but it does not need to repeat the schema's parameter documentation. Baseline 3 is appropriate because schema coverage is 100%.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it runs SHPBL's own audit against the running server and returns per-axis pass/fail/unavailable lines. It is unmistakably distinct from the sibling repo, library, subscription, and mutation tools because it is a diagnostic read-only audit of the server surface itself.

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?

The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'prove the server is live and consistent before starting a run, or when a tool answered in a way that looks wrong.' It does not list when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the sibling tools are clearly different operations, so the intended context is well established.

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