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

Read-only is already declared by readOnlyHint=true, and the description consistently reinforces it ('It sends nothing'). Beyond the annotation it discloses real behavior: the review is grouped by section and each missing required answer is tagged 'Missing - required'. It stops short of rate limits or error behavior, but adds solid context against a lower annotation bar.

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?

Short, front-loaded sentences with the core behavior (check, returns review, sends nothing) up top, followed by the workflow steps. The imperative dialogue line ('Ask: Do you want to change any answer?') is slightly chatty but serves the stated workflow, so little is wasted.

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 read-only validation tool with 26 parameters, no output schema, and nested objects, the description usefully describes the return shape (answers listed by section with 'Missing - required' markers). An agent knows what it gets back and when to call it, with only minor gaps around error handling.

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 100% across all 26 parameters, so the schema already documents fields, enums, and which are required. The description's 'missing required answer' phrasing loosely connects to the required fields but adds no syntax, format, or selection guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Check the draft') and immediately clarifies the return behavior ('returns a review to show the person'). The contrast with `submit` ('It sends nothing', 'Before submit') gives an agent enough to tell the two tools apart, though it never names `submit` as an alternative directly.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('Before submit, show the review from check_draft') and even dictates the follow-up interaction ('Ask: Do you want to change any answer? Change answers until the person is done'). It has no explicit when-not-to-use clause, but the pre-submit framing is clear context.

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