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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context: verification is done 'independently' and reported 'separately from generation,' which clarifies the tool's role beyond what annotations provide.

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 is front-loaded with the action and contains no filler. Every phrase adds value: independent checking, canonical constraints, and separation from generation.

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 an output schema present, the return value need not be explained, but the description still leaves key aspects unclear: what 'description' means, what counts as a candidate, and where the canonical constraints come from. The definition is minimally sufficient but lacks important operational detail.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it does not explain what the required 'description' parameter should contain or what structure 'candidate' should follow. The word 'candidate' is the only vague hint, leaving both parameters under-specified.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: it 'Checks a proposed candidate independently against the canonical constraints.' It also differentiates verification from generation, which helps distinguish it from generation-focused siblings, though it does not name alternative tools explicitly.

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 this tool should be used when a candidate needs independent verification rather than generation. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, so the usage context is only implied.

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