Check a user story

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose the return shape: a 0-100 score, a verdict enum (ready / needs-work / not-ready), and findings with suggested fixes. It does not state whether the check is read-only/pure or whether findings are prioritized, but for a validation tool this is substantial disclosure.

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 tight sentences: purpose and criteria first, return values second, usage directive last. No filler, and the most decision-relevant content is front-loaded.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description compensates by describing the score, verdict, and findings. Inputs are fully documented by schema, and the usage rule closes the loop on when to invoke, so nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 every parameter is documented inline, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only indirect meaning (acceptanceCriteria is implicitly the target of 'acceptance-criteria quality rules'); it does not clarify optional-parameter effects, e.g., what happens when narrative is present but acceptanceCriteria is omitted.

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 concrete verb (checks) plus the resource (one user story) and enumerates the exact criteria set (INVEST + acceptance-criteria rules), so the agent knows precisely what the tool does. It implicitly separates itself from validate_backlog by scope (one story), but never names the sibling, leaving a small differentiation gap.

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?

'Use it on every story you draft before showing it to the user' gives clear, actionable timing guidance. It stops short of exclusions or naming an alternative (e.g., validate_backlog for whole backlogs, suggest_splits for oversized stories).

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