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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses deterministic behavior, stable outputs, and the fact that it performs no data fetching or API validation. It does not mention whether it modifies anything, but the term 'gate' implies a read-only check. This covers key behavioral traits sufficiently.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the primary purpose and efficiently conveys the essential scope. It avoids unnecessary words and is well-structured for quick comprehension.

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?

The tool has a moderately complex schema with nested objects and enums, but the description omits details about the comparison modes, canonicalization options, contract version, and the output format (only broadly mentions 'incompatibility codes and remediation actions'). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to properly invoke the tool.

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?

The description does not explain any of the five parameters. It mentions 'field contracts' generically but does not define source_fields, target_fields, comparison_mode, canonicalization, or contract_version. Since the schema also lacks descriptions, the parameter meanings are entirely unexplained, providing no added value.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('gate') and specifies the context (ingestion, migration, CI deployment, machine-to-machine handoff). It also distinguishes itself by noting it does not fetch data or validate API behavior, making it distinct from sibling tools.

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 provides usage context by listing the scenarios (before ingestion, migration, CI deployment, machine-to-machine handoff) and explicitly states what it does not do (fetch data, validate API behavior), which helps an agent decide when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives or provide conditions for choosing this over the siblings.

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