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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, but the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond these: it is deterministic (0-LLM), sealed, grounded in specific regulations (KR 표시광고법 / US FTC), and returns a reproducible replay_hash. It also clearly frames the tool's role as a pre-publication check, not a legal or marketing approval. No contradictions with annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose ('Deterministic, sealed pre-publication verdict'), then succinctly covers output, legal grounding, and usage timing. Every sentence adds value with no fluff or repetition.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explicitly reports return values (verdict, severity, replay_hash), which is essential for a tool with no structured output definition. It also explains the regulatory basis and the exact timing of use. Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 params, no nested objects), the description covers all necessary operational context.

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 schema already documents 'copy', 'lang', and 'market' with meaningful descriptions. The description adds context that 'copy' is a PUBLIC claim and offers examples (marketing copy, product page, ad headline), but it does not meaningfully enhance understanding of 'lang' or 'market' beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific, action-oriented phrase: 'Deterministic, sealed pre-publication verdict on a PUBLIC claim', immediately clarifying the tool's resource (public claims) and output (verdict). It further distinguishes itself by listing concrete claim types ('marketing copy, product page, ad headline') and contrasting with legal advice/approval. This strongly delineates it from sibling tools like idea_rehearsal and rejudge_claims.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('Call this before a public claim ships') and provides exclusions ('NOT legal advice, NOT market proof or launch approval'). However, it does not name alternative tools or explicitly describe when not to use it beyond these exclusions, so it falls short of full alternative guidance.

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