Check the tracker

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description still adds real behavioral context: it is per-row diagnostic output, it names the detection heuristics (e.g. dates stored as text, applied column disagreeing with status, reply date recovered from response text), and it flags per-issue fixability. It stops short of describing ordering or whether results are truncated at the limit, which is a minor gap.

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?

It is one long but dense sentence with the core purpose front-loaded ('find what hand edits leave behind, row by row') and the issue catalogue as an efficient list. The nested parentheticals make it slightly heavy to parse, but every clause names a real detection case rather than 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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return shape, and annotations cover the safety profile; the parameter is documented at 100% coverage. What remains uniquely on the description's shoulders, the set of issues detected and their fixability, is fully spelled out.

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 single 'limit' parameter is fully documented in the schema (default 200, max 1000), so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about what 'limit' truncates or how ordering interacts with it.

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 ('find what hand edits leave behind') on a specific resource (tracker rows) and then enumerates the concrete defect classes it detects, which distinguishes it sharply from siblings like summary, list_applications, and fix_tracker. An agent can tell exactly what this returns without opening the schema.

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 closing line 'Each issue says whether fix_tracker can fix it' establishes the remediation path and implies the check-then-fix workflow. It does not, however, state explicit preconditions or when to prefer describe_tracker or list_applications instead, so the routing is implied rather than spelled out.

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