Check evidence completeness

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

The annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive, but the description adds crucial behavioral context beyond that: it is not an authorization check, and it imposes strict privacy requirements (consented, data-minimized, redacted or aggregated evidence; never raw private interviews, secrets, credentials, or personal identifiers). This fully discloses the tool's role and constraints.

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 organized with a main sentence, a warning, and then 'Use when' / 'Do not use when' sections. However, there is noticeable redundancy: the first sentence and the 'Use when' line both state 'use after entity resolution and before any readiness claim/verdict,' and the 'Do not treat completeness as authorization' message appears twice. While each distinct piece is informative, the repetition makes it slightly less concise than it could be.

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?

Given the tool's complexity and the presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description adequately covers the workflow position, the specific checks performed, and important privacy constraints. It does not explain the return format, but that is the responsibility of the output schema. Minor gap: it could clarify what an 'incomplete' result implies for downstream decisions, though the 'do not treat as authorization' warning partially addresses this.

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 has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all fields inside the payload object, so the description does not need to add parameter-level explanations. The description references some concepts like verification status and source-family diversity, which map to schema properties, but adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's function: to check verification status, source-family diversity, stakeholder coverage, and missing proof. It also positions it distinctly relative to siblings by specifying when it occurs in the workflow (after entity resolution, before readiness claims). This makes the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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?

Explicit 'Use when' and 'Do not use when' sections give clear guidance: use after entity resolution and before verdict when evidence may be incomplete or one-sided; do not treat completeness as readiness or authorization. It also implies sequencing relative to sibling tools, such as mvr_entity_resolve and mvr_decision_check, without naming them directly.

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