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

Annotations already cover read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying that it returns the quality gate verdict and any contradiction for a queued job, which is beyond what the annotations express. It does not cover staleness or edge-case behavior, but that is not critical for this simple read-only status check.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The triggering condition is front-loaded, the return behavior is stated, and the negative case is included. Every sentence earns its place.

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 one-parameter, read-only status tool with no output schema, the description covers the trigger, the return content, and the do-not-call case. An agent has enough information to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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% and the single job_id parameter is already described accurately in the schema. The description reinforces that the job_id must come from a queued cortex_write, but it does not add new format, validation, or semantic details beyond 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?

States a specific action: check the quality-gate verdict of a queued cortex_write job and return any contradiction it opened. It clearly distinguishes itself from the cortex_write initiation tool and other siblings by referencing the queued job_id follow-up context.

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?

Explicitly defines the triggering condition: a previous cortex_write returned a job_id as queued and the user asks whether it was saved. It also provides a clear negative rule: do not call it when the write already came back with a verdict.

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