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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful behavior: errors come back with locations and hints, and success yields the authority manifest with resources, worst-case calls/cost, approval sites and flows. It never explicitly states that the operation is non-mutating or what auth/prerequisites apply, but the 'type-check' verb makes the read-only nature inferable.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the action and then the return contract. No filler, no repetition 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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain return values — which it does in detail for both the failure and success paths. The remaining gap is the unstated safety profile (side effects, prerequisites) for a tool whose params are otherwise fully enumerated.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does name all three parameters and adds real meaning for policy ('optional policy TOML', matching the nullable default in the schema), but it leaves the format of program and host ambiguous — path vs inline source is not clarified — so compensation is only partial.

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: 'Type-check a program against a host interface (and optional policy TOML).' That is far more precise than a restated name, and the checker role is easy to distinguish from siblings like remit_run_fixtures or remit_authority_diff, but no sibling is named or contrasted, so it stops short of a 5.

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 when the tool applies (static checking of a program against a host, with policy as an optional overlay), but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and never points at alternatives such as remit_run_fixtures for executing rather than checking.

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