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

The description discloses detailed return content (findings, repair suggestions, determinism hash, re-verifiable certificate) and emphasizes deterministic behavior ('Same input + same rules = same verdict'), which adds value beyond the idempotentHint annotation. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three concise sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by output details and a determinism note. Every sentence contributes value with no 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?

The description compensates for the lack of an output schema by enumerating all return elements. Combined with complete parameter schema coverage, it provides enough context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The schema already provides descriptions for all three parameters with 100% coverage. The description does not add new parameter-level details beyond reinforcing the relationship between structured_data and Blueprint rules, so it meets the baseline but doesn't exceed it.

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 validates structured data against a Blueprint's rules, specifies the timing ('BEFORE the result is used'), and lists concrete output types (PASS, FAIL, REVIEW). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like verify_certificate or validate_repair.

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 phrase 'BEFORE the result is used' provides clear temporal context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of full explicit guidance.

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