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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the operation is paid ('PAID.'), indicates it is a read-style return, and notes the intended deploy-time use. It does not describe response behavior or rate limits, but for a checklist retriever the key traits are disclosed.

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 short segments ('PAID.', purpose, usage intent) are tightly packed with no filler, and the key warnings are front-loaded. Every sentence contributes information an agent needs.

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 tool's low complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description covers purpose, usage timing, paid status, and output content. It could name sibling alternatives for routing, but nothing necessary for correct invocation is missing.

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 100%, so the optional 'phase' parameter is already fully documented with its allowed values. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, which is acceptable per baseline.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and identifies a distinct resource (the pre-ship checklist) with clear content ('every gate ... each with the concrete failure it prevents'). It is distinct from sibling tools by resource name, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with fde_playbook or fde_catalogue.

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 phrase 'Designed to be called before every deploy' gives explicit timing/context for using this tool. It does not mention exclusions or alternatives, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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