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

Beyond the annotations' read-only/idempotent hints, it discloses account scoping, the required MCP_API_KEY bearer token, and precisely what the response contains (per-directory present/derived-with-source/missing-with-fix, a deduped blocker list, and progress counters). The auth requirement is information annotations do not supply.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and the kit exclusion, and every clause carries content. It is dense for a single sentence-and-a-half but not padded; slight overload from stacking the return-value enumeration inline.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so thoroughly (per-directory status, derivation sources, deduped blockers, progress). Combined with the auth and scoping notes, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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 100%, so limit, product, and directory_name are already documented in the schema, including the domain-authority sort and substring matching. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond 'per directory', so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('check what is missing before ... can be submitted to directories') with an explicit scope constraint ('WITHOUT generating a full kit'), which cleanly separates it from the sibling generate_submission_kit. An agent can select it without opening 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?

States the exact decision contexts it serves ('what is missing' or 'where should submissions start') and the sequencing rule ('before doing any submission work'), plus the negative case of not building a kit. Alternatives are implicitly routed via the sibling name.

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