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

The description goes beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by disclosing that no verification or publication authorization occurs, and that the tool trusts caller-supplied declarations. This is important context because the word 'gate' might imply enforcement; the description directly clarifies that this tool only aggregates.

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, front-loaded with the action and output, followed by a single limitation sentence. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

The description is complete enough for a read-only aggregation tool: it specifies what it accepts, what it returns at a high level (PASS/WATCH/BLOCK), and what it does not do. A minor gap is the lack of detail about the exact output shape or how the aggregation threshold works, but that is not critical for invoking the tool correctly.

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%, so parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds general context about boolean declarations but does not explain individual parameter semantics or aggregation rules, which is acceptable given the baseline for fully covered schemas.

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 precise verb and object: it aggregates caller-supplied boolean release-check declarations into PASS/WATCH/BLOCK. It also explicitly contrasts itself with running CI, inspecting files, verifying declarations, and authorizing publication, which clearly differentiates it from sibling run_* tools.

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 clearly implies when to use it: when you only need to aggregate declared booleans into a gate result, not when you need actual verification or authorization. The negative list ('Does not run CI, inspect files, verify the declarations, or authorize publication') provides explicit when-not guidance, though it does not name alternative tools.

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