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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) indicate it's not read-only or destructive. The description adds that it 'Bills two metered verifier runs against the caller', disclosing a cost implication not captured in annotations. It also describes the output structure without 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 description is two paragraphs, concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. It includes necessary details without being verbose. Could be slightly more structured, but overall efficient.

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?

Given the complexity (two verifiers, billing, multiple ID formats, output fields) and presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's behavior and effects. It mentions billing and status outcomes, which is sufficient for the agent.

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% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds value by explaining that template_id can be a UUID, slug, or @handle/slug, and reinforces the version parameter's behavior. This goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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 runs both system safety verifiers on a published template version. It specifies the verb 'run', the resource 'template version', and the scope 'both system safety verifiers'. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'check_workflow_safety' and 'run_verifier'.

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 explains how to specify the template (UUID, slug, @handle/slug) and defaults to the latest live version. It mentions billing and different access patterns (REST vs MCP). While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use, it provides sufficient context for usage.

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