Verify IFC export readiness

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying that only IFC-related QA rules are run and that the Tapir add-on is required. It doesn't describe details like whether the rule set is dynamic, but the output schema covers result structure.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the prerequisite is stated separately. Every sentence earns its place, and the description is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 purpose and a dependency, and the output schema exists, but it completely omits the 'port' parameter semantics. For an agent to invoke the tool correctly in all cases, it needs some indication of what 'port' controls. The description lacks this, leaving the definition incomplete despite the tool having just one parameter.

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 0%, yet the description does not mention the 'port' parameter at all. Even though the parameter is optional, the description provides no meaning for it, leaving the agent to guess whether or how to supply a port. This is a significant gap given the 0% schema coverage.

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 ('Run') and resource ('IFC-related QA rules'), and the intended outcome ('check IFC export readiness'). The word 'only' clearly distinguishes this from broader QA/audit tools like audit_delivery_readiness, making the tool's scope unambiguous.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when you need to verify IFC export readiness rather than general delivery readiness. It also notes a prerequisite (Tapir add-on). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to alternatives like audit_delivery_readiness for non-IFC checks.

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