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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds substantial detail beyond that, listing specific error and warning conditions, 'shadow start' rules, and what 'expected' means. It does not describe return formatting or performance, keeping it from a 5.

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 dense but front-loads its purpose and uses clear 'Errors:' and 'Warnings:' groupings. It is longer than typical, with some parenthetical interruptions, but every clause contributes relevant validation information.

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 complex validation tool with no output schema and a rich nested context parameter, the description thoroughly covers step validation but never explains how the context object (e.g., size, physical, high_stakes) alters the rules. The schema descriptions partially compensate, but the description alone leaves an important gap.

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 75%, so the baseline is 3. The description clarifies what the steps parameter should contain (stages, gates, events, etc.) and mentions the evidence concept via 'expected', but it does not explain the lang or context parameters, leaving the schema to carry most of that burden.

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 (Checks) and resource (an ordered list of steps), and enumerates the step types it validates. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like check_gate or check_mix, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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: an agent can infer this tool validates a plan. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions.

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