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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it declares 'Read-only,' requires the MCP_API_KEY bearer token, and describes the output structure (present/derived/missing with fixes, deduped blockers, progress). It doesn't mention rate limits or error handling, but for a read-only check tool this is minor. The 'without generating a full kit' also prevents the agent from expecting side effects.

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 description is two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and the key differentiator ('WITHOUT generating a full kit'), then details output, safety, auth, and usage. Every sentence earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, output details, auth requirement, and explicit usage guidance. It doesn't specify error scenarios or edge cases (e.g., what if no products exist), but for a read-only check it is thorough enough for an agent to call correctly. The differentiation from generate_submission_kit is a strong point.

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 each parameter (limit, product, directory_name) already has a descriptive schema entry. The tool description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond that, but it does not need to since the schema is complete. This matches the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Check what is missing') and a clear resource (fields required for submission), and explicitly contrasts with generating a full kit, which distinguishes it from generate_submission_kit. It also lists the output components (per-directory status, derived sources, blockers, progress), leaving no ambiguity about its function.

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 explicitly states when to use it: 'Use to answer "what is missing" or "where should submissions start" before doing any submission work.' It also implies the alternative by saying 'WITHOUT generating a full kit,' which clearly tells the agent this tool is not for producing the submission kit itself. No exclusions are missing.

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