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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: it explains the return semantics (problems found, empty = ready), the non-blocking nature of advisory warnings, and an example of such a warning. This lets an agent interpret results correctly without an output schema.

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 definition is front-loaded and dense: the core action and checks come first, followed by return semantics and a trailing "Read-only" tag. Every clause adds distinct information with no filler.

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?

Given no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns (problems and warnings) and how to interpret an empty result. Combined with annotations for safety and a fully documented single parameter, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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 single agent_id parameter is fully documented in the schema (coverage 100%), including where to find the id. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (validate) and resource (agent draft), then enumerates the exact checks performed: workflow-graph validity, tool resolution, and model allow-list membership. It also distinguishes itself from running the agent ("pre-flight a draft without running it"), which separates it from siblings like probe_agent or build_agent.

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?

It clearly frames the usage context (pre-flight validation before running a draft) and states what a successful result looks like. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this versus probe_agent or get_agent.

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