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

Annotations already cover readOnly=true, destructive=false, openWorld=false, but the description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond them: 'stores nothing' (no side effects), 'does not judge truth' (scopes what validation means), and 'Host-held authentication only' (auth requirement). Strong added value for a preview tool.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the core action leads and the behavioral caveats follow. Well sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and the behavioral disclosures are helpful. However, with 4 required parameters and 0% schema coverage, the description leaves parameter meaning and usage routing thin for a tool that clearly has a validation gatekeeping role.

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 0% for all four required parameters, so the description must carry the burden and it largely does not. It echoes the notions of revision/rules/format/content but never explains thread_id's cth_ pattern, revision semantics, or the content size limits the schema enforces.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Check a result draft') and enumerates the checks performed (format, rules, revision, membership, publication budgets), which clearly sets it apart from submission siblings like commons_result. It stops short of naming the alternative tool, but the dry-run nature is unmistakable.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'Check a result draft' suggests calling this before committing a result, but the description never states when to use it versus commons_result or commons_results, nor any prerequisites. Adequate but the when-to-use guidance is left to inference.

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