check_readiness

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description is not required to cover safety. It adds real behavioral context beyond that: a three-state result model ('unknown vs not_met') and a warning not to read checklist_complete as launch approval. That interpretation guidance is valuable and not derivable from the structured fields.

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, front-loaded with the capability and followed by the key semantic caveat. Nothing is wasted, though the phrasing is terse enough that a little more structure could have been added without padding.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies the critical interpretation caveat about checklist_complete; the only real omission is parameter meaning, which is scored separately.

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 single required parameter integration_id has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate and largely does not. 'per app/platform' hints at scoping but never explains what an integration_id is or where it comes from, leaving the one input undocumented.

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 verb and resource ('Check six scoped requirements per app/platform'), which tells an agent exactly what the tool returns. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings, but the sibling set (draft_ticket, triage_issue, etc.) is functionally distinct enough that this is a minor gap.

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 second sentence clarifies how to interpret the result ('checklist_complete means only this project's checklist; it is not launch approval'), which is a genuine usage caveat. However, there is no guidance on when to call this versus alternatives or what prerequisites exist, so usage is only implied.

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