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

Annotations cover safety (idempotentHint true, destructiveHint false, readOnlyHint false). The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying the exact return payload (per-node trace with timing, deterministic flags, verdict, hash) and clarifying it is a validation run, which is useful for understanding side effects and output. No contradictions.

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 concise: two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the primary function and output contents, while the second provides usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining what is returned. It lists the key components (trace, verdict, hash). It also gives clear usage context. It does not detail edge cases, cost, or error behavior, but for a debugging tool with well-covered schema, this is sufficiently complete.

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%, with all parameters (api_key, blueprint, structured_data) already having descriptions. The tool description does not add parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Run validation and return the per-node execution trace' with specifics (node names, deterministic flags, timing, verdict, determinism hash). It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'validate' tool by explicitly noting 'this is for debugging and audit preparation'.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is given: 'Use validate for normal operation; this is for debugging and audit preparation.' This tells the agent when to choose this tool over the primary validation tool, satisfying both when-to-use and alternative identification.

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