Reporting checklist for a design

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so no contradiction exists. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those hints: items are graded 'required', 'expected', or 'optional', each item carries its rationale, and the checklist is meant for drafting rather than exhaustive auditing.

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 and front-loaded: a one-line purpose, a compact explanation of grading semantics, explicit usage timing, a sibling alternative, and a clearly formatted Args list. Every sentence adds value without padding.

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 is complete for a read-only checklist tool: it explains what is returned, how items are graded, when to use it, when not to use it, and what each parameter does. Although there is no output schema, the 'tickable table' and item-grading description cover the key output expectations.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds useful meaning: it explains that omitting design returns items common to every design, that section restricts to a section, and that include_optional controls optional-item inclusion. The only minor gap is that response_format is not mentioned in the Args list, though the schema documents it fully.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Return the reporting checklist for a design as a tickable table.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from its sibling lnm_audit_manuscript by contrasting a working list with a check against finished text, so an agent can tell them apart.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('Use while drafting the Methods, and again before submission') and names the alternative for a different task ('For a check against finished text instead of a list to work from, use lnm_audit_manuscript'). This gives the agent actionable routing guidance.

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