Check Answerable

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

Annotations already declare this is a safe read (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds real behavior: it is cheap, it enumerates the four possible verdicts, and it returns per-entity best matches despite no match being a failure signal. The instruction not to substitute a similar measure when material coverage is missing is important behavioral guidance an agent would not otherwise know.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core framing ("Cheap pre-flight") and the return shape before the operational caveat. Nothing is padded, though the verdict enumeration could arguably be left to the output schema.

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, return values need not be re-explained, and annotations cover the safety profile; the description supplies the conceptual model and the failure-mode guidance. The one gap is that its relationship to the similarly named check_readiness sibling is left for the agent to guess.

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%, including a detailed extraction recipe for `entities` and the optional-datasource note, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond implying that the question's entities are what gets checked. 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 gives a specific verb and resource: it checks whether the ontology covers every entity in a question, and names the outputs (coverage, verdict, best matches). An agent can tell this is a coverage pre-flight rather than a data query. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with the sibling check_readiness, which reads like an adjacent pre-flight tool.

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?

"Cheap pre-flight" implies it should run before heavier operations, and the last sentence tells the agent what to do when coverage fails. However, it never states when to use this versus check_readiness or get_query_context, and gives no explicit exclusions. Usage is inferable rather than specified.

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