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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower; the description still adds real value by spelling out the three outcome states and the exact conditions that produce each. That is meaningful behavior no annotation conveys, since no output schema exists.

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 call condition, then the outcomes, with no filler. It is dense but every clause carries information; the only cost is that the state rules take a careful read.

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 must supply return semantics, and it does so for all three outcomes. The remaining gap is that the token parameter, which is required and probably a precondition, is left underexplained for a two-parameter gating tool.

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 50%: token's meaning comes from the schema field description ("Latest contract token"), and the description does explain the purpose of the unchecked array ("the rest are listed in unchecked with a reason"). However, the token itself is never explained in the description, so it adds only partial meaning beyond the schema.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and object: the tool evaluates whether a task's Definition of Done is satisfied. The three named return states (DONE, DONE_WITH_GAPS, NOT_DONE) make the semantics concrete, though it never names or contrasts a sibling such as check_flow_evidence.

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?

"Use before saying a task is done" gives explicit timing guidance, and the return-state rules implicitly tell the agent what to do next (supply unchecked items with reasons to get DONE_WITH_GAPS). No exclusion rules or explicit alternative tools are mentioned, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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