check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and largely succeeds: it lists the report sections, defines DANGLING-DOC and ORPHANED, and notes CLI parity. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe error/auth behavior, but 'report' strongly implies a non-mutating check.

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 compact, front-loaded paragraphs: the first defines the report and its categories, the second explains the sole parameter. Every sentence adds information, and the CLI-parity note is a useful behavioral guarantee rather than filler.

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?

The tool is a simple one-optional-parameter report with an output schema, and the description covers the input semantics and report contents well. The only notable gap is the lack of explicit routing guidance versus sibling tools; otherwise the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke it 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?

The schema gives client no description at all (0% coverage), so the description fully compensates by defining it as the owner slug, marking it optional, and specifying both effects: narrowing documents and adding the INCOMPLETE section. This is exactly the semantic enrichment the schema lacks.

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 opens with 'Integrity/freshness report' and then enumerates concrete report sections, making the tool's job unmistakable. It is clearly distinguished from the fact-lookup siblings (list_facts, get_fact, search) and needs no inference to understand what it produces.

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 description explains the optional client parameter and its effect, but it never explicitly tells an agent when to prefer this tool over list_facts, get_fact, search, or precedents. Usage context is implied by the report nature, but no direct alternatives or exclusions are given.

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