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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the exact rule set checked (manifest, naming, class, perform method, secrets) and that the tool emits a report of findings the agent should act on.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, and the most important content (what it validates) is front-loaded before the workflow instruction. Every clause earns its place.

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 read-only validator with full annotation and parameter coverage and no output schema, the description supplies what rules are checked and how to react to findings. It could be slightly more explicit about the shape of the report, but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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%, with both parameters ('code', 'filename') fully documented including the _agent.py naming convention. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 resource ('Checks a finished RAPP agent file') and enumerates exactly what is validated: manifest, naming, class, perform method, hardcoded secrets. This distinguishes it clearly from siblings like get_agent_code or get_agent_template.

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 explicit prescriptive guidance: 'Call it on every agent you write, fix anything it reports, and call it again until it passes,' which covers the intended workflow and iteration loop. No explicit when-not-to-use or named alternative is provided, so it falls short of a 5.

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