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

Annotations already declare the read-only, non-destructive, open-world safety profile, so the description's added value is its disclosure of return shape (normalized JSON, root type, SHA-256 hash). That output disclosure matters because no output schema exists. It stops short of clarifying what the hash is computed over or determinism guarantees.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler that leads with the primary action before listing secondary outputs. Every clause 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 one-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately covers both operation and return payload. Only minor gaps remain (determinism, normalization rules) that an agent could want but not strictly need.

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 the single 'json' parameter is fully documented in the schema (including the 100 KB cap). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ("Validate") and resource ("JSON") and even enumerates the outputs: root type, normalized JSON, and SHA-256 hash. It clearly distinguishes itself from a pure extractor or hasher, though it never names a sibling tool to sharpen the boundary.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this over json_extract or hash_generate, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The agent must infer applicability purely from the verb, which is not enough given the overlapping sibling set.

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