Check plan tactic coverage

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), but the description adds meaningful behavior: violations come back as an error list and never a silent pass, and it states which artifacts it inspects (registry + plan file). The 'writes nothing' clause partly restates readOnlyHint, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the verification criteria come first, then usage, then sibling distinction. Every sentence contributes, though the 'read-only tool ... writes nothing' clause is slightly redundant with the annotations.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by describing the return contract (error list, never a silent pass) and the two input sources. For a validator tool this is complete enough for an agent to invoke and interpret results correctly.

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%, including the 'overrides plan_id' precedence, so the schema carries the parameter meaning. The description adds no further syntax, format, or default details beyond what is already documented, making 3 the appropriate baseline.

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 specific verb (verify) and resource (campaign tactics) with the exact criteria checked: offer citation and success metric. Explicitly names the sibling build_plan and contrasts its role (creates the shell vs validates on disk), so the agent can distinguish them without opening either schema.

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 trigger ('after every build_plan and again after any manual edit') plus an explicit exclusion ('do NOT use it on arbitrary markdown that never went through build_plan without first scoring its offers'). Both when and when-not are covered with a named alternative workflow.

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