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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavior: read-only, no LLM call, values_assessment always empty, values_assessment_unavailable always false, scope_note contains 'values_layer_consulted:false', and demo disclosures are appended in PUBLIC_DEMO-mode. This goes beyond minimal expectations.

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 moderately sized and front-loaded with the key point (no LLM call). Some punctuation and capitalization are inconsistent, but every sentence contributes useful information without major redundancy.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be detailed. The description covers the tool's deterministic nature, cost profile, and demo-mode behavior. However, it lacks an explicit high-level statement of what the 'check' actually evaluates, relying on knowledge of check_action and check_triple.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain the 'action' or 'context' parameters. It only indirectly indicates that 'action' is the subject of the check and 'context' is optional. The description does not compensate for the schema's lack of explanation.

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 it is a deterministic, mechanical check with no LLM call, mirroring consistency-gates check_triple, and producing the same receipt form as check_action. This clearly differentiates it from the sibling check_action, though the core 'check' semantics are implied rather than stated.

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 indicates this is the cheap, mechanical, read-only variant and mentions the PUBLIC_DEMO-mode as free and never rate-limited. It contrasts with check_action, implying check_action is for LLM-based assessment, but it does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives.

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