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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description goes beyond that by enumerating the validation categories (structural, best practices, nudges) and the shape of each returned issue (stable captable.* code, severity, English suggestion), which is genuinely useful given there is no output schema. It stops short of stating whether results are persisted or whether an empty issue list is meaningful.

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 sentences, purpose first, then the taxonomy of findings, then the per-issue shape. The category examples are dense but each one directly tells the agent what output to expect, so nothing is padding.

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?

With no output schema and zero required parameters, the description carries the burden of explaining returns and does so adequately via the category list and issue anatomy. Minor gaps remain (empty-result behavior, whether an alternate project can be targeted) but an agent can call it confidently.

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%, so severityFilter and expectedProjectId are already well documented in the schema itself. The description adds nothing about either parameter and its phrase 'on the current project' is slightly narrower than the schema, which lets expectedProjectId redirect the call to another project. Baseline 3 applies.

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 (runs validation engine) and resource (cap table of the current project) and names the return (list of issues). This clearly separates it from siblings like validate_arch, validate_journey and validate_process_flow, which validate different artifacts.

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 scope 'on the current project' implies when to call it, and the issue categories hint at what it is for, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or naming of alternatives (e.g. compute_direct_ownership, propose_captable_import). Usage must be inferred.

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