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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully states the checks performed (scope, signature, expiry, current drift), but does not clarify whether the tool is read-only, what happens on failure, or what it returns.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Its density is appropriate, though the jargon 'current drift' and 'promotion receipt' could benefit from slight expansion.

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 tool with four required parameters, a nested receipt object, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is too sparse. It omits parameter meanings, success/failure semantics, and how it relates to sibling verification or drift tools.

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 0% for four required parameters. The description only hints at receipt contents through the listed checks and says nothing about the 'agent', 'site', or 'task_class' parameters, so it does not compensate for the schema gap.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Gate check for a promotion receipt,' and lists the verification dimensions. It does not differentiate from sibling tools, especially drift_check, which overlaps with the 'current drift' check mentioned here.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as drift_check or rehearse. The phrase 'gate check' implies a pre-promotion validation context, but this is left for the agent to infer.

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