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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects. 'Check' suggests a non-mutating operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it is read-only, nor does it describe what output or side effects may occur.

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 concise sentence with a clear verb and object. It contains no fluff or redundant information, and the structure is easy to parse.

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?

The description covers the basic purpose but omits details about expected output, return format, or any prerequisites. Given the simple input schema and no output schema, it is adequate but not rich in context for an agent deciding between this and similar hook-check tools.

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 has no descriptions for the 'artifacts' array or its 'path' and 'content' fields, and the description only lists artifact types without explaining how path/content are used. It adds some context but does not fully compensate for the lack of schema-level parameter details.

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 action ('Check') and a specific resource ('generated code, IaC, policy, or config artifacts') against 'Huawei Cloud hook risk rules'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like huaweicloud_hook_check_command and huaweicloud_hook_check_deploy_plan based on artifact type.

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 implies usage for artifact checking but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over the sibling hook check tools. No direct alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, leaving some inference to the agent.

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