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

Annotations declare readOnly and non-destructive, and the description adds substantial behavioral context: it states that completeness must not be treated as authorization, and imposes strict privacy constraints ('consented, data-minimized, redacted or aggregated evidence; never raw private interviews, secrets, credentials, or personal identifiers'). These go beyond the annotations and clarify important safety boundaries.

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 somewhat redundant: 'Do not treat completeness as authorization' appears twice, and the 'Use when' line largely repeats the first sentence. While it is still informative, it could be tightened to a single concise paragraph without losing value.

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 complex nested schema and presence of an output schema, the description covers purpose, timing, exclusions, and privacy constraints adequately. It doesn't explain return values, but the output schema covers that. Minor gap: it doesn't describe actions taken when evidence is found incomplete, but overall it is sufficient.

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 schema provides descriptions for all parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds conceptual meaning by mapping the tool's evaluation to schema fields like source_class and stakeholder_class, thereby enriching understanding of what the parameters represent. However, it does not detail individual field 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 specifies the verb 'check' and resource 'evidence completeness', listing concrete dimensions (verification status, source-family diversity, stakeholder coverage, missing proof). It also distinguishes from siblings by stating it is used 'after entity resolution and before any readiness claim', differentiating it from mvr_decision_check and mvr_entity_resolve.

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 provides explicit 'Use when' and 'Do not use when' sections, advising use after entity resolution and before verdicts, and warning against treating completeness as authorization or readiness. This gives clear context and exclusions, even though it doesn't name sibling tools directly.

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