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

Discloses substantial behavior beyond annotations: the two-stage backend (describe-then-claim-split), the verdict enum and returned fields, that neu discards an existing result and is ignored within 60 s, and that the call is free to the account. readOnlyHint=false is consistent with the neu re-check path; no contradiction.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: purpose first, then backend mechanics, verdicts, workflow policy, and cost. Nearly every sentence carries information, though the numbering of claim types and the long retry clause make it heavier than strictly minimal.

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 compensates by naming the return fields (verdict, checks, issues, beschreibung) and the pass/mismatch/unverified values. For a three-parameter check tool it tells the agent everything needed to invoke it and act on the result.

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 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds context the schema lacks: neu is framed as 'check again' within the automatic-after-generation workflow, and id/reference_type are situated in the read-vs-recheck loop. It stops short of explaining field-level formats already covered by the schema.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Prompt check of ONE generated image or clip: does the result show what its prompt asked for?' It further distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it runs automatically after every generation and is surfaced by lab_job_status. An agent can identify it without opening the schema.

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?

Explicit guidance: it runs automatically after every generation, so calling it reads the result; call with neu=true to re-check. It states when-not and the follow-up policy on mismatch (offer at most ONE retry, lead the new prompt with the failed claim, never re-run a video autonomously).

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