check_summary_grounding

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable limitations: what cannot be verified (meaning, omissions, anchor appropriateness), that GR-05 is only a hint, and that passing the check does not imply correctness. This goes well beyond the structured fields and sets correct expectations.

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 well-structured with clear headers and bullets, front-loading the core purpose and limitations. It includes useful examples and explicit caveats. It repeats the parameter definitions already present in the schema, which is minor redundancy, but overall it remains efficient and scannable.

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 read-only validation tool, this description is complete: it states what is verified, what is not verifiable, the meaning of not_verifiable, the normal handling of reworded text, and provides both usage and non-usage examples. The output schema (GroundingResponse) already defines the return structure, so no further details are needed.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters already include meaningful descriptions in the schema (path as 'original file', draft as 'full draft to verify'). The Args section in the description only repeats this information, adding no new semantic meaning. 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 states a specific verb and resource – 'checks whether each sentence of the draft is grounded on original anchors' – and enumerates the four concrete rules (GR-01 to GR-04). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like preview_save_report, which handle saving and approval.

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 provides both positive and negative usage conditions: 'use right after writing the draft, before saving' and 'do not use when a save plan and approval token are needed', naming the alternative tool preview_save_report. This leaves no ambiguity about when to invoke the tool.

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