Check one answer's grounding

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that the tool is deterministic, requires no model or network, and returns pass/fail with named issues. It also reveals key validation behaviors around anchors, numbers, and abstention, which goes well beyond a bare description.

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 a single dense sentence with no filler. It front-loads the tool's core purpose, then lists the specific checks and the deterministic/offline nature, with return behavior stated at the end. Every clause earns its place.

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?

The description covers what the tool validates, that it is deterministic and offline, and what it returns (pass/fail with named issues). With no output schema present, this is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior. Minor gaps are the absence of explicit usage examples or edge-case notes, but the overall context is adequate.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description references anchors, traceable numbers, and abstention, which loosely map to answer_anchors, allowed_new_numbers, and answerable/abstain_markers, but it does not add much parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already documents.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('check a single answer against the context') and enumerates precise checks: anchors present, numbers traceable, abstention when unanswerable. It clearly identifies the tool's function, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling check tools like check_extraction or check_readiness.

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 description gives useful context ('Same logic as the CI gate — no model, no network'), implying use when a deterministic, offline check is needed. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it.

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