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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is read-only, that it never re-submits writes, and that unsupported or ambiguous readback requires operator review. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema. It could add more detail about what 'readback' means or what happens on failure, but the core safety and limitation traits are clearly disclosed.

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, no filler. The first sentence states the core action and scope; the second adds the critical safety limitation. Every word earns its place, and the most important behavioral trait (read-only, no re-submission) is front-loaded.

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 simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains the purpose, the safety profile, and the limitation. The main gap is that draft_id is not explained, and the description does not describe what a successful or failed reconciliation looks like. However, given the tool's narrow scope and the absence of an output schema, the description is close to sufficient.

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 50%: customer_id has a description, draft_id does not. The description does not explain what draft_id refers to or how it relates to a mutation. Since the tool is about reconciling a mutation, draft_id is likely a draft mutation identifier, but that is left to inference. The description adds some context about the tool's purpose but does not compensate for the undocumented draft_id parameter.

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 states a specific verb ('Run one exact read-only Google resource check'), a clear resource ('Google resource'), and its purpose ('for a confirmed or uncertain native mutation'). It also distinguishes itself from mutation tools by explicitly saying it never re-submits the write, which differentiates it from the many *_confirm siblings.

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 indicates when to use it: after a confirmed or uncertain native mutation, to verify the resource state. It also states what it does not do ('never re-submits the write') and that unsupported or ambiguous readback requires operator review, which implies when NOT to rely on it. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the context of the sibling list and the phrase 'requires operator review' gives practical guidance.

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