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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose useful behavior: results are filtered to only what would change your mind, and file-based matching triggers even when wording differs. It never states whether the call is read-only or whether the stated intent is persisted anywhere, which is a material ambiguity for a tool whose name suggests a 'check' that could also record.

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?

The when-to-use trigger is front-loaded, followed by the return contract and then parameter guidance, which is a sensible ordering. The prose is slightly conversational ('say what you are about to do'), but no sentence is filler.

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?

Return values need not be explained since an output schema exists, yet the description does describe them anyway. The real gap is the 0% schema coverage across five parameters: `limit` (default 3) and `max_chars` (default 1200) control the response size but are explained nowhere, which an agent needs to know before calling.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it only does so partially. It explains `intent` well (one plain-text line, with two concrete examples) and explains `files` (path list that broadens matching regardless of wording), but `limit`, `max_chars`, and `project` are never mentioned and remain completely undocumented.

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 names a specific operation (a pre-flight check before starting non-trivial work) and enumerates exactly what it returns: failed attempts, still-in-force decisions, and overlapping open tasks. That return profile distinguishes it from the memory siblings (recall/remember) without the agent needing to open any schema.

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?

It gives a clear trigger condition ('before you start something non-trivial') and a cost rationale ('cheaper than repeating work that already failed once'). It does not, however, name an alternative tool or state when to skip this in favour of recall/project_status, so it falls short of explicit when-not guidance.

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