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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden on its own; it does reveal the reporting model (per-constraint verdict, concrete atoms, offsets) and that caller-supplied anchors override automatic atom extraction. However, the sentence is cut off mid-word at 'whether the clo', so the disclosed behavior for negated constraints — arguably the most subtle part — is never delivered. It also says nothing about whether matching is case-sensitive in general (only anchors are noted as case-insensitive) or how partial/ambiguous matches are treated.

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?

It is front-loaded with the purpose in the first clause and is dense rather than padded, which is good. But it is a single run-on sentence that ends abruptly mid-word, so the structure fails to deliver a complete, readable definition; a short second sentence covering the negation branch and the report shape would cost little and fix it.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description is responsible for telling the agent what comes back; it does so partially (per-constraint atom presence with offsets) but is truncated exactly where the return semantics for negated constraints would be described. For a two-parameter analysis tool that is otherwise well specified by its schema, this is a notable but not fatal gap.

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 the baseline would be 3; the description earns an extra point by explaining what actually gets extracted from the free-text constraint ('numbers with their unit or currency, ISO dates, codes, quoted terms') and by clarifying the practical meaning of the anchors field. It loses some credit because the sentence describing that behavior is truncated before the negation case is explained.

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 specific verb+resource: 'Check that earlier constraints ... survive into a later plan or summary', and it enumerates both the constraint types (numbers, dates, codes, quoted terms, negations) and the artifact types (plan, summary, handoff, tool arguments). An agent can tell exactly what operation this is. It stops short of naming a sibling alternative, but the purpose itself is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied by the argument pairing: give it the constraints an agent was given plus the later artifact, and it reports survival. There is no explicit 'use this when…', no statement of when a plain text diff or a sibling check would be preferable, and no exclusion for cases like checking constraints against the original source rather than a downstream artifact.

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