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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It communicates that this is an advisory check and that delegation authority is subdivided, never created. This gives the agent a meaningful sense of side-effect-free validation, though it does not specify the response format or whether any verification state is involved.

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 compact and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value, and the domain invariant is stated efficiently. There is no redundant 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?

Given the high complexity of the nested parent schema, six required parameters, and no output schema, the description is not complete enough. It does not explain how to determine the parent state, what daaScore represents, what a valid result looks like, or what inputs the caller must supply beyond the obvious child budget fields.

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 only 17%, so the description needs to compensate for parameter meaning. It explains the parent/child relationship in general terms, but it does not clarify the semantics of key parameters such as daaScore, childAgentKey, or how the child budget fields map to the legal-narrowing rule.

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 action (check) on a specific resource (proposed child grant) and defines the core criterion: whether it is a legal narrowing of the parent. It also explains the underlying rule clearly. This differentiates it from sibling build/check/spend 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 implies when to use the tool: to validate a proposed child delegation before or without building it. It labels the tool as advisory, which suggests it is safe to call for pre-validation, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it.

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