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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds the useful behavioral facts that it 'computes nothing and adds no evidence' and only reports what the results back. It also names the output container (`findings`) and each entry's `why`, which goes beyond the annotations.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by scope, the recommended trigger, and remediation guidance. It is somewhat dense with backtick field references, but each sentence carries distinct information and nothing is wasted.

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 verification tool with no output schema, the description compensates by describing the return shape (`findings`) and what each finding's `why` contains. It also explains how to resolve findings, so an agent has enough to act correctly, though exact severity/formatting details are left implicit.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already explains what `text` should be ('the prose the end user will actually read, including tables and captions'). The description reinforces that figures in tables count, but adds no syntax beyond what the schema provides, 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 specific verb and resource — 'check a draft passage against the engine results' — and immediately scopes it to results 'computed in THIS session'. It is clearly distinguishable from the design_*/run_* siblings because it explicitly declares 'It computes nothing and adds no evidence', making it a verifier rather than a generator.

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 trigger — 'Run it before publishing or handing over a report, fabrication sheet, BOM summary or any other figure-bearing deliverable built from these tools' — with a list of qualifying artifacts. It lacks an explicit exclusion or a named alternative ('use X instead of Y'), but the routing to the computing tools in the fix guidance is strong usage context.

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