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

Annotations already establish the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the description is not the primary source of behavioral information. It adds the gating context that the creator must accept the meaning before funding, but says nothing about what a failed validation reports or how coverage/compatibility are judged.

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 short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. Each sentence carries a distinct instruction (what it validates, where to get the schema, the funding precondition).

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 validation tool with a nested-object parameter at 0% coverage and no output schema, the definition should explain what a validation result contains (errors, coverage gaps, compatibility failures) and what constitutes a valid plan. It leaves both the input shape and the return behavior unspecified.

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 0% and the single 'plan' parameter is an untyped nested object with no property descriptions. The description only points to find_verification_checks for the schema rather than describing the plan's structure, so an agent still cannot construct the argument from this text.

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+resource ('Validate ... plan') and narrows it to two concrete aspects: 'complete criterion coverage' and 'checker compatibility'. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from find_verification_checks by casting that sibling as the schema source rather than the validator.

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 provides workflow context (get the plan schema from find_verification_checks; the creator must accept the meaning before funding), which implies when the step belongs in the flow. However, it never explicitly states when to call this versus alternatives or when a plan is ready to validate, so usage is only implied.

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