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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing: no cost, permissions, whether it mutates state or merely reports, rate limits, or what happens when the windows don't overlap. The '[trust]' tag and 'DRG-100-DriftBound' code are opaque labels, not behavioral information.

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?

It is short, but its brevity comes from under-specification rather than efficiency — a single fragment that communicates no operation. There is nothing to front-load because nothing substantive is said.

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 tool with a nested-object schema, three required params, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should carry the entire explanatory load. It provides none of it, so the agent cannot construct a valid or meaningful call.

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 0% across three required parameters, two of which are nested objects (reference_window, current_window) with entirely undefined shape. The description adds no meaning to model_id or the window structures, leaving their format, units, and expected keys completely unspecified.

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 says 'DriftGuard check (DRG-100-DriftBound)', which essentially restates the tool name inside a product codename plus an undocumented internal identifier. It never explains what 'drift' means here or what the check measures, so an agent cannot distinguish it from siblings like drift_certificate or agents_semantic_diff.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative is mentioned. With drift_certificate, trust_decay, trust_score, and agents_semantic_diff in the sibling list, the agent has no basis for choosing drift_check over any of them.

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