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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the tool is non-destructive and non-spending, and explains provider-specific behavior: for Hugging Face, it checks a pinned commit/file without advancing; for Hydracept artifacts, it rechecks immutable content and safetensors structure. It also notes that provider-native refs are opaque and remain declared. This is a strong disclosure for a validation tool.

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 concise and well-structured. It starts with a clear action statement, then provides provider-specific details, and ends with a usage trigger. Each sentence serves a purpose, and the critical non-spending aspect is front-loaded. No filler or redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs to know: the action, the non-spending guarantee, provider-specific behavior, and when to use it. The output schema likely covers return format, so no need to describe that here. This is complete for a validation tool.

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%, so the description must compensate for the single parameter 'adapter_id'. The description implicitly defines the parameter as the identifier of the registered adapter to revalidate, which adds meaning beyond the schema. It's not overly verbose but clarifies that the parameter refers to a registered adapter's identity, which is essential.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to re-check the frozen source identity of a registered adapter without spending or generating money. It specifies the resource (registered adapter) and the verb (revalidate). It also distinguishes itself from siblings like hydracept_register_model_adapter (which registers) and hydracept_pinned_get (which retrieves pinned info), by emphasizing the action is a non-generating re-check.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to use this tool: when sourceHealth is stale, unavailable, or invalid. It also explains what it does not do (never advances a branch or tag, never generates or spends money). While it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools to use instead, the context makes the intended use clear, so no exclusions are necessary.

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