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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes well beyond that by disclosing the exact error/warning taxonomy, the severity distinction (analysis-before-design is a warning 'early' while building before G3-G5 is an order error), and the semantics of 'shadow start' and 'expected' — genuinely useful operational context.

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 purpose is front-loaded and every clause carries information, but the body is a dense run-on enumerating errors and warnings with no separation or formatting, which hurts scannability. It is information-rich rather than padded, but structure is weak.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe the result — and it does, effectively documenting the error and warning categories the validator returns. Given the complex nested context object, it is largely complete, though it says nothing about the context/evidence inputs that shape validation.

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 75% and the nested context object documents most fields, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description never mentions the context, evidence, or lang parameters and adds no syntax or format detail for steps beyond naming the element types, so it does not compensate for the remaining gap.

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?

States a specific verb (checks/validates) against a specific resource (an ordered list of steps), and enumerates the element types it understands (stages, gates, events, practices, etc.). It is clear what the tool does, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the similarly named siblings check_gate, check_mix, or plan_project.

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 enumeration of error and warning categories, which tells the agent the tool is for pre-flight validation of a planned sequence. However there is no explicit 'use this when / not when' statement and no routing guidance relative to check_gate or check_mix, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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