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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds genuine behavior context — it returns missing or placeholder decisions plus acceptance scenarios, and it does not persist the draft — but with no output schema it could say more about the shape and size of that result.

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?

Four short sentences that are front-loaded with purpose, then prerequisite, then the semantics of the `decisions` payload, then return content and exclusions. No sentence is redundant with the others.

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?

For a two-parameter read-only validator with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, prerequisite, payload semantics, return content, and exclusions. It leaves vague what qualifies as a "placeholder" decision and how large a result set can be returned.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does: `pattern` selects which decision set applies, and `decisions` keys must come from the fetched spec while each value describes intended behavior with a rationale when a requirement does not apply. It omits any note on the key/value length limits that 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?

States a specific verb and object ("Check whether a draft supplies the required decisions") and bounds it to four named pattern families. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from the fetch sibling by noting that spec:<pattern> must be fetched first for the exact decision keys.

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?

Gives a concrete prerequisite workflow ("First fetch spec:<pattern>") and explicit scope exclusions ("Does not inspect code, certify accessibility, or save the submitted draft"), so the agent knows what not to expect. It stops short of naming a sibling alternative for the non-validation cases, but the routing intent is clear.

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