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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld=false, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: results are tri-state (supported, unsupported, unknown) each with evidence, and nothing is asserted without a source. That tells the agent how to interpret and trust the output, which the annotations do not. It stops short of describing response shape or how conflicts are reported.

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 verb and the two input modes, with no filler. The first sentence is a long comma chain of check dimensions, but each item carries information the agent needs; the closing sentence justifies the evidence-based behavior.

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 8 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers both the input modes and the nature of the result (tri-state with evidence), which is the hard part. The remaining gap is that zero parameters are required and the description never says what a minimal or empty call yields, which slightly underspecifies an 8-param optional-only 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 88%, so baseline is 3; the description earns an extra point by mapping nearly every parameter to a purpose — product slug, framework list matching the enum, artifact number, game build, OneSync, and server resource-list conflicts — and by naming concrete resource examples (ox_lib, ox_inventory, ox_target, oxmysql) for the `check` array. It does not address the `files` payload beyond what the schema already says.

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?

Opens with a precise verb+resource: checks whether a product (by slug) or the caller's own resource files fit a server, and enumerates exactly which axes are evaluated (framework, required resources, artifact, game build, OneSync, conflicts). That enumeration separates it from validate_resource and validate_server_cfg in practice. It never names those siblings, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Usage is implied by the parameter framing ("your server's framework", "resources your server starts"), so an agent can guess this is a pre-install/feasibility check. But there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or pointer to validate_resource / validate_server_cfg for the adjacent tasks.

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