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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: not whether the tool reads or writes, what it returns, or what happens on missing input. "Includes the complete prompt, usage guide, and edge-case handling" is a packaging claim about bundled content, not a description of runtime behavior. No contradiction, but heavy under-disclosure.

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?

It is short, but front-loaded with a generic tagline and marketing superlatives rather than the operative information. Nearly every sentence is promotional filler that does not help an agent decide or invoke.

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 annotations, no output schema, and a check tool whose subject and verdict format are entirely undefined, an agent has no basis to call this correctly. The definition is essentially a product blurb, not a usable tool contract.

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% for the single optional `query` parameter, so the schema already explains its meaning. The description adds nothing about how the query scopes the check, but the baseline of 3 applies when the schema does the documenting.

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 text restates the name ("proto check tool") and pads it with marketing language ("Turn expertise into output", "produce professional results in minutes") rather than stating a specific verb and resource. It never says what is being checked — a prototype spec, a PRD, a design — or what a check produces. An agent cannot distinguish it from rd-proto-gen-tool or rd-proto-tpl-tool on purpose alone.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no preconditions, and no mention of the two obvious sibling alternatives in the rd-proto family (gen, tpl). The only audience hint, "restaurant and brand teams", is domain framing, not an invocation condition.

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