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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds valuable behavioral context by explaining that it compares the two latest full scans and includes the declared model drift watch, going beyond what the annotations alone provide.

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 a single sentence that packs in the core behavior, scope options, and the extra drift-watch feature without wasted words. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and remains easy to parse.

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 simple, read-only tool with one optional parameter and rich annotations, the description gives enough context to invoke it correctly. It does not describe the exact return structure, but no output schema exists and the behavior is conceptually clear; the remaining ambiguity around 'model drift watch' is minor.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full explanatory burden for the host parameter. It does this by indicating that the tool works either catalogue-wide or for one host, implying that an empty host means catalogue-wide and a populated host scopes the result. This compensates well for the bare schema.

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 deliverable: verdict changes between the two latest full scans, optionally scoped to one host, plus model drift watch. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like payability_verdict or host_summary, but the subject matter is clear and distinct enough.

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 phrase 'catalogue wide, or for one host' implies the intended usage scopes, and the read-only nature suggests it is for inspecting drift rather than modifying state. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over nearby alternatives such as payability_verdict or host_summary.

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