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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the operation is read-only and side-effect free ("Free, saves nothing"), that it mirrors the real validation OpenMark performs, and that it surfaces both errors and warnings. It omits auth requirements or rate limits, but covers the key behavioral traits.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, with the cost/side-effect note and return summary packed efficiently. No filler, though the phrasing is slightly compressed rather than maximally clean.

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?

For a single-parameter validation tool with no output schema, the description covers what is checked and what is returned (problems plus warnings) and frames it as a dry run. Nothing critical is missing, though prerequisite/plan-eligibility behavior is only hinted at.

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% for the single parameter, so the schema already documents task_yaml and its JSON-object alternative. The description adds no format or syntax detail beyond confirming it operates on a task YAML, making 3 the appropriate baseline.

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?

States a specific verb (check/validate) and resource (task YAML) and enumerates the scope of the check: structure, scoring settings, and plan test limit. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like run_benchmark, though it never names an alternative tool explicitly.

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 way OpenMark will before running it" plus "Free, saves nothing" clearly positions this as a pre-flight dry run to be used before run_benchmark. The when is well conveyed; there is no explicit exclusion or named alternative tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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