Check the words

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

Even though annotations already declare read-only and idempotent behavior, the description adds useful behavioral context: the specific issue categories it checks and the output contract of 'what, why, who says so, and the better move.' No contradiction with the annotations exists.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded, with the core action first, then the rule list, then the parameter/output contract. It is slightly redundant because 'Run ... over a folder, or over a block of text' is restated in 'Pass either directory or text,' which prevents a top score.

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 an output schema and sufficient annotations present, the description covers the important operational aspects: input modes, the rule set, and the result format. The main gap is the implicit relationship to sibling tools like check_honesty and review_site, which affects complete context.

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 already documents all three parameters with full coverage, so the baseline is a 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by stating 'Pass either directory or text,' which conveys that these are alternative input modes rather than interchangeable or combinable fields.

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 opening line states a specific action and resource: 'Run the copy and honesty rules over a folder, or over a block of text pasted straight in.' It also lists concrete examples of what the rules catch. However, it does not differentiate check_copy from the sibling check_honesty, which overlaps with the 'honesty rules' wording.

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 implies when to use the tool by describing the folder/pasted-text modes and the rule categories, but it never names alternatives or says when not to use it. Given the sibling list includes check_honesty)Skip, an explicit contrast would have made the guidance stronger.

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