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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description is consistent with a safe read operation. It adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotation: the rubric content details (checkParams, submission formats, brief fields read) and the fact that channel defaults to 'article'. No contradictions.

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 with no waste: the first delivers the full return payload, the second explains the channel parameter and its consistency requirement, the third gives the workflow position. The most important scoping facts are front-loaded.

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 fully compensates by enumerating what the rubric contains. It covers the optional parameter behavior, the relationship to lint_draft, and when to call it in the workflow. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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 coverage is only 33%, so the description carries the burden. It explicitly explains the channel parameter's meaning and default ('article default'), plus why it matters ('use the same channel you will pass to lint_draft'). suggestionId's role is implied by 'for an article suggestion', and context is already self-described in 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('Get the verification rubric for an article suggestion') and enumerates the exact contents: submission formats, required vs advisory checks, numeric checkParams, and the brief fields lint_draft reads. It clearly distinguishes itself from nearby siblings by naming lint_draft as the downstream consumer, leaving no ambiguity about what this tool returns.

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 workflow guidance: 'Fetch this before writing so the draft passes on the first submission' and instructs the agent to pass the same channel it will pass to lint_draft. It names the companion tool directly, though it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus other brief-related siblings like get_article_brief.

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