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

Beyond the annotations it discloses reproducibility guarantees ('nothing is fetched and no endpoint is probed'), quota limits (three checks per Preview grant), the absence of usage-event writes, and that no verdict maps to an action. There is mild tension with readOnlyHint=false since the text emphasizes side-effect-freedom, but the claim is narrow ('never writes usage-events') rather than a blanket denial, so it is not a contradiction.

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 purpose is front-loaded, but the body is a dense wall of sentences packed with parenthetical asides and raw endpoint references, making key operational facts (quota, alternative endpoint, no-write guarantee) hard to scan. Most sentences carry content, but the lack of paragraphing hurts structure.

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?

For a complex tool with nested objects, six parameters, and an output schema, the description covers triggers, inputs, verdict shape, limits, and quotas adequately; return values are correctly left to the output schema. It never defines what a 'supported mcp-consumer-fit schema' is, leaving one input contract underspecified.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it explains that the caller supplies both sides (snapshot + requirements) and that optional 'previous' converts the call into a revision-aware check that yields a revision_receipt comparing conclusions. revision_label and profile_version are left to 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 opening sentence states a specific operation on a specific resource: evaluate whether an exact revision satisfies declared workflow requirements, and it explicitly frames the answer as a verdict with per-check results. An agent knows this is a pure evaluation tool, not a mutation or retrieval operation.

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 enumerates exact call triggers (NEW_WORK, DEPENDENCY_CHANGE, REQUIREMENTS_CHANGE, INTEGRATION_FAILURE, OTHER_REAL_WORK) and names an alternative path for the uncertain case (POST /v0/snapshot-lint, no credential, no quota). Both when-to-use and a fallback are explicit.

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