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

Annotations already declare a safe read-only, non-destructive, closed-world operation, so safety context is covered. The description adds little beyond that: it never says what validation produces (pass/fail, error list, severity), how strict validation is, or what version mismatches do. The masterData/referenceData restriction merely restates the schema enum.

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 short sentences with no filler, but 'call list_standards first' appears twice, making the second line redundant. It also opens with usage guidance instead of a front-loaded statement of what the tool does.

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 tool with five parameters, a nested object payload, and no output schema, the description omits what the data object must look like, what version and entityType control, and what a successful versus failed validation looks like. Routing guidance is complete, but invocation-critical detail 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 description coverage is only 20% across five parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It implies the standard name must come from list_standards, but says nothing about version, entityType, or the shape/requirements of the nested data payload, and its category note duplicates the schema enum 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 first sentence states what the tool does (a payload is 'checked against a standard other than Open Footprint') and immediately names the scoping condition. It cleanly distinguishes itself from ofp_validate, though it leads with usage rather than a plain statement of purpose.

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 when-to-use (non-Open Footprint standards), explicit alternative (ofp_validate for Open Footprint payloads), and an explicit prerequisite (call list_standards first to see supported standards). Nothing about tool routing is left to inference.

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