Test a reply against checks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context ('deterministic', cheap pre-run testing) but does not disclose how failures are reported or that all checks must pass, which lives only in the schema.

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?

Two short sentences, zero redundancy, with the action front-loaded and the motivation immediately following. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

With a full output schema covering return values, rich annotations, and 100% schema description coverage, the description supplies what an agent needs to select and call it. Minor gaps: no statement about check limits or failure granularity, though these are implied by the schema.

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%, so types, enum values, defaults and per-field meanings are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond implying a single reply, 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 action ('run deterministic checks') on a specific resource ('one model reply'), which is concrete enough to distinguish from config-oriented siblings like validate_eval_config. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with any named sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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 a clear use context and a motivating condition: design eval checks and routing guards before spending money on a real run. It omits when-not-to-use and any named alternative, so it is clear guidance without exclusions.

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