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

The readOnlyHint=true snapshot adds safety context, and the description adds further transparency by listing exactly what is read, how the rubric is structured, and how the channel parameter relies on the existing article default. There is no contradiction between the description and annotations.

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 dense two-sentence block: the first sentence defines the return value in detail, the second gives channel selection and timing guidance. It stays on-topic and each element earns its place, though the first sentence is long enough to be slightly more readable if split.

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 shoulders the duty of explaining what the rubric contains and how the channel parameter behaves. Combined with the schema's required suggestionId and channel enum, an agent has enough to call the tool correctly. The only meaningful gap is not explicitly flagging suggestionId as required.

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 percent, so the description must compensate. It explains the channel parameter thoroughly — its enforce meaning and the requirement to match lint_draft — but suggestionId is only implied by the phrase 'for an article suggestion'. It does not explicitly state that suggestionId is required, leaving the schema to convey that detail.

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 opens with a precise verb-plus-object pair: 'Get the verification rubric for an article suggestion'. It then enumerates concrete contents of the rubric — submission format, required vs advisory checks, numeric limits (checkParams), and the brief fields read by lint_draft — making the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinct from siblings like lint_draft.

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 timing guidance ('Fetch this before writing so the draft passes on the first submission') and instructs the caller to pass the same channel they will pass to lint_draft. It doesn't name alternative tools to use in other scenarios, but the relationship to lint_draft clearly grounds when this tool is appropriate.

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