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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating this is a read-only operation. The description adds value by detailing the eight specific practices checked and the nature of the result (passed/failed/why). It does not introduce any side effects or contradictions. It goes beyond the annotations by specifying the check criteria and return information.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Checks a dealership follow-up text message') and then lists the eight practices concisely. While the list is long, each item is necessary and there is no filler. The structure is efficient and informative.

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 only one input parameter and no output schema, the description provides enough context: it enumerates the check criteria and indicates the result format ('what passed, what failed and why'). This is sufficient for an agent to understand what the tool does and what to expect, even though it doesn't specify exact output fields. Given the tool's simplicity, this is adequate.

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 only parameter 'text' is fully described in the input schema ('The text message as it would be sent'). The description does not add any additional semantic detail about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 applies; no extra credit is warranted.

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 a specific verb (checks), a specific resource (dealership follow-up text message), and enumerates the eight practices it evaluates. It also indicates the output (what passed, what failed and why). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like rewrite_follow_up_text or write_follow_up_texts, which generate or modify text rather than evaluate it.

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 makes the use case clear: evaluating a follow-up text against eight practices. It implies when to use it (when you need to check a text) but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives. Since the context is clear and there are no exclusions, it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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