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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: it reports every unsupported figure and every claim the results contradict, returns them in `findings` with a `why` reason, and offers four remediation patterns. It stops short of describing ordering, counts, or empty-result behavior.

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?

Front-loads the core action and return shape, then the usage trigger, then the remediation guidance. Every sentence carries content, though the closing enumeration of fix strategies is slightly long relative to the rest.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining returns and does so: it names the `findings` collection and its `why` field and characterizes what lands there. For a single-parameter, read-only check, nothing an agent needs 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 coverage is 100% for the single `text` parameter and the schema already says to pass verbatim prose including tables and captions. The description reinforces 'verbatim' but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 precise verb+resource: check a draft passage against engine results from THIS session. The scope qualifier ('THIS session') and the negative framing ('computes nothing, adds no evidence') clearly separate it from the compute siblings like run_link_budget and run_thermal_analysis.

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 an explicit trigger ('Run it before publishing or handing over a report, fabrication sheet, BOM summary or any other figure-bearing deliverable built from these tools') and implicitly rules out using it as a compute tool by stating it computes nothing. An agent knows exactly when to reach for this versus a solver.

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