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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: it is cheap, checks without solving, and returns every problem at once with a JSON path for each. It does not fully describe success output format, but the error behavior is clearly disclosed.

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, front-loaded with the core action, then scope, then the workflow trigger. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 simple read-only validation tool with one well-documented parameter and annotations covering the safety profile, the description covers what is checked, when to call it, what it returns on failure, and how it relates to solve_design. Nothing needed to invoke 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 description coverage is 100% and there is only one parameter, whose schema description already says it is the design document to check. The tool description does not add syntax or format details beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 for high schema coverage is appropriate.

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 and resource: check a design against schema v1. It explicitly distinguishes itself from solve_design by saying 'WITHOUT solving it' and describes the exact validation scope (property keys, types, units, structure). An agent can tell this apart from review_design and solve_design without opening either schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Run this after writing or editing a design and before solve_design.' It also explains why: a design that fails here is refused by the solver, and these messages are more specific. No alternative routing is left ambiguous.

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