check_draft

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses the privacy posture ('nothing is uploaded anywhere'), the deterministic-vs-model execution modes, the API-key/network requirement, and the precise meaning of a pass ('a green tick means an evidence file you supplied actually states the claim's substance'). The dedicated WHAT IT WILL NOT DO section pre-empts the most likely misuse, treating unsubstantiated claims as `unverified` rather than guessing.

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?

Front-loaded with the one-line purpose, then organized into a parameter block and a caveats block. Despite its length, every sentence carries distinct information (privacy, mode semantics, output routing) and none restates the tool name or schema boilerplate.

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?

For a six-parameter tool with zero schema coverage, no annotations, and an existing output schema, the description covers exactly the right ground: full parameter semantics, execution-mode behavior, privacy guarantees, and where to get structured output. Return-value explanation is correctly omitted since an output schema exists.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and it does: every one of the six parameters is documented inline, including the draft/draft_path mutual exclusivity, what evidence_dir offers to the checker, a concrete evidence_json example, the origin of policy_json via `claimgate init-policy`, and the semantic difference use_model=false makes to returned statuses.

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 one piece of marketing copy against the evidence you hold') and immediately scopes the output as a plain-English report, which cleanly separates it from the sibling check_draft_json. An agent can tell what this tool does and what class of result it 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?

Explicitly routes the agent to check_draft_json for machine-readable detail and explains the use_model=false branch (no network, no API key, undecidable claims come back `unverified`). It also notes policy_json is omitted to use built-in defaults. However the sibling check_policy_only is never mentioned, and there is no explicit 'do not use this when...' guidance.

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