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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint), the description adds substantial behavioral detail: it discloses the read-only nature, states that no credentials are returned, explains exactly what the verdict reports (missing, modified, unexpected paths with expected sha256), and cautions about the limits of a passing result. This goes well beyond what annotations alone provide and helps set accurate 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 dense but not bloated; it front-loads the core purpose and then provides parameter semantics, output verdict details, and a safety note. The HTTPS endpoint mention is slightly extraneous but earns its place by indicating this is the same check already available over plain HTTP. Every sentence contributes useful information, though the description is a bit long.

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 no output schema, the description properly explains what the verdict returns: exact missing, modified, and unexpected paths with expected sha256 values. It also covers the required parameter behavior, the runtime enum convention, and the read-only/no-credentials guarantee. For a 4-parameter verification tool, this is a complete and self-sufficient description.

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. The description adds meaningful semantics for the two key parameters: files[] is 'for every kit file written' and runtime must be 'named, never guessed.' This clarifies the agent's responsibility when constructing inputs. repair_steps and installed_version are not elaborated in the description, but their schema descriptions are adequate.

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+resource: 'Check a Boosthis kit's FILES ON DISK are byte-perfect.' It also differentiates this from related tools by emphasizing file verification on disk and by adding the important caveat that 'a pass proves the files, never that anything is measured yet.' Among the sibling tools, this clearly stands out as the installation-integrity verifier.

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 clear contextual guidance: use this to verify that kit files on disk match expected byte-perfect hashes. It also provides an implicit exclusion with 'never that anything is measured yet,' warning agents not to use it as evidence of runtime behavior. It does not name sibling alternatives explicitly, but the context is sufficient for an agent to select it appropriately.

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