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

Beyond the already-strong annotations, the description discloses important behavioral boundaries: no save, no credential verification, no full API validation, and no call-quality certification. It also specifies the public/no-key nature and the redaction requirement, which are critical operational details.

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 short, front-loaded, and every phrase carries useful information. The key constraint and scope are stated immediately with no filler.

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 description covers scope, privacy, and non-goals well, and annotations cover the safety profile. But with no output schema and an undocumented nested config parameter, an agent still lacks guidance on the config object's expected shape and the result format.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for a required nested `config` object, so the description must compensate. It adds only that the config should be redacted and contain no secrets or customer data; it does not explain what fields the configuration object expects or what the seven checks inspect.

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 states a specific operation: static configuration checks on an assistant config, and clarifies the tool is public and keyless. It distinguishes itself from mutation siblings by noting no save occurs, but it does not name a direct alternative among the many assistant/config-related 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?

It gives a clear input constraint (send a redacted configuration with no secrets or customer data) and lists what the check does not cover. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of siblings like update_assistant, get_assistant, or check_entitlements.

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