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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description discloses meaningful behavior: it is read-only and non-blocking, it runs deterministic rules before AI review, it returns pass or issues_found, and feedback is auto-filed only when both layers agree. This adds substantial context not available from the schema or annotations.

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 description is front-loaded with the core purpose, safety, and behavior, followed by parameter context and clear usage guidance. It is somewhat lengthy and repeats some schema details, but every section serves a functional purpose and the structure makes it easy to scan.

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?

The description covers what the tool does, how it behaves, when to use it, when not to use it, what each parameter means and where to source it, and what to do if the output is unsatisfactory. With an output schema present, nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description mostly restates the schema's parameter meanings, with only minor additions like finding tool_id in any response and query_hash enabling feedback correlation. It meets the baseline but does not significantly extend what the schema already provides.

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 and resource: 'Validate a DataNexus tool response for data quality issues using two-layer validation.' It clearly distinguishes itself from report_feedback by contrasting validation with manual reporting, and the title reinforces the intent without circularity.

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 description explicitly provides usage direction: 'Use validate_tool_output to check data quality. Use report_feedback instead to manually report an issue you have already identified.' It also gives a concrete fallback scenario with exact instructions, leaving no ambiguity about when to choose this tool versus its sibling.

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