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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, and the description reinforces this with 'statically check' and 'Never executes code,' adding a stronger execution guarantee. It also notes the source is 'bounded,' providing input constraints not present in 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?

Two short sentences with the most important usage timing and full scope list front-loaded. The second sentence 'Never executes code' is a critical safety property stated with zero waste.

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 6-parameter tool with an output schema and rich annotations, the description covers the key contextual signals: when to run it, what it validates, and its non-execution guarantee. It omits return-value details, but those are presumably captured in the output schema, and the sibling context makes its role clear.

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 the schema already documents each parameter fully. The description adds a high-level grouping of inputs (imports, configuration, dependencies, versions, bounded source) that helps map intent, but it provides no per-parameter details 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 description uses the specific verb 'statically check' against concrete resources: structured RevoGrid imports, configuration, dependencies, versions, and optional bounded source. It clearly aligns with the tool's name and differentiates it from sibling tools like plan_revogrid_implementation or inspect_revogrid_api by framing it as a validation step before handoff.

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 opening phrase 'Use before implementation handoff' provides a clear trigger condition for when to invoke the tool. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the workflow placement is unambiguous and gives enough context.

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