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

Goes well beyond the annotations: discloses the async build dry-run (minutes), the transient `build_status: 'building'` state and the need to re-call, the advisory-only nature of the smoke result, and that submit is gated server-side. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before invoking.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then behavior, then parameters — a logical order. It runs long and restates the smoke behavior already in the schema, but nearly every clause carries operational information.

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?

An output schema exists, yet the description still names the return categories (blocking issues vs advisory warnings, build_status, smoke), closing the loop for a tool with async and conditional-result behavior. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds sequencing the schema omits: `smoke` runs only after the build passes and its verdict is advisory. It also clarifies `agent` is the slug/id of the caller's own draft.

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+resource (validate a draft) and immediately differentiates it from the submit gate it mirrors. An agent can tell it apart from findagent_submit_for_review because the description says it surfaces the same checks up front rather than performing the submission.

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?

Explicit 'before submitting' timing, explicit note that submit is blocked server-side until this passes, and explicit routing to findagent_create_draft / findagent_create_code_draft for the required `agent` argument. When-to-use and the dependency on the sibling submit tool are both stated.

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