Verify

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that verification happens after readiness setup, but its parallel mention of 'apply' alongside a read-only tool is mildly confusing rather than informative. No contradiction is established since the tool itself is the verify step.

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, front-loaded sentences with no padding. It is efficient, though the second sentence's three-verb enumeration is what makes it cryptic rather than the length.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. But in a three-tool docs-readiness workflow the description never states what 'verify' actually checks or how it relates to preview/apply, leaving the agent to guess. For this complexity level it is under-specified.

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%, and the schema's repository field already carries the critical caveats (exact manifest identity, config must pre-exist, this action does not make a repo rollout-ready). The description adds no parameter-level meaning 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?

The description names the domain (rm_docs_readiness) and stage (after per-repository readiness setup) and the object (artifacts). However, the phrase 'Preview/apply/verify artifacts' enumerates three verbs that map to three separate sibling tools, so the agent cannot cleanly tell what *this* tool alone does. Purpose is only minimally distinguishable from rm_docs_readiness_preview and rm_docs_readiness_apply.

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?

No explicit when-to-use vs the sibling tools, even though rm_docs_readiness_preview and rm_docs_readiness_apply exist and the description itself references preview/apply. The only implicit guidance is 'after per-repository readiness setup'. The minimal precondition ('Readiness config must already be generated/adopted') lives in the schema, not the description.

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