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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds specific behavioral details beyond that: 'never persists, forwards, executes or pays' and 'canonicalize' implying transformation without side effects. This enriches the agent's understanding of the tool's side-effect-free nature.

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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and validation scope, and the second sentence crisply disclaims side effects. Every word earns its place.

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 one-parameter validation tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, side-effect profile, and validation categories. However, it omits the event structure details and any guidance on interpreting results, leaving the agent to infer how to construct a valid batch and what a successful validation looks like.

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 0% and there is only one parameter 'events' described as an array of objects with additionalProperties. The description calls it a 'bounded batch' but does not explain what fields an event object must contain, which dimensions map to which properties, or what format is expected. The agent would have to guess the event structure, making this a significant gap.

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 (canonicalize and validate) and resource (bounded batch of exchange events), listing the validation dimensions (identifiers, idempotency, causality, privacy, secret leakage, negotiation order). It clearly describes the tool's function but does not explicitly differentiate from the similar sibling validate_capacity_listing, though the context makes the target resource distinct.

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 implies usage: use this when you need to validate an exchange batch before any action. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus validate_capacity_listing or other validation-related tools, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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