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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes outputs (artefact counts, freshness stats, knowledge gaps) and implies a read-only check, but does not explicitly confirm non-mutation, side effects, or any special requirements. It adds some behavioral context but not fully comprehensive.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with a clear summary ('Question-scoped readiness check'), and each sentence adds value. It is appropriately concise and well-structured with no 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?

With an output schema present, return values are already covered. The description covers purpose and usage well, but the lack of parameter explanations for optional fields leaves a gap in completeness. It is adequate but not fully complete for a tool with three parameters and no schema descriptions.

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 has 0% parameter descriptions, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'task_description' indirectly ('Given a task description') but does not explain 'domains' or 'action_types' at all. These parameters remain ambiguous in meaning and usage.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('returns') and resource ('what the system knows and doesn't know'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by framing as a question-scoped readiness check that answers 'do I have enough evidence to answer this?'.

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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use BEFORE answering to decide if you should search more or commit.' It also advises searching with different terms when coverage is thin. This gives clear context, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives.

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