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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint false, and openWorldHint false. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: it is free, writes nothing, returns every problem addressed by JSON path, and produces actionable diagnostics.

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 front-loaded and efficient: it leads with the dry-run action and side-effect guarantee, then gives schema references and the create_catalog routing. A phrase or two could be trimmed, but no sentence is wasted.

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 single required document parameter, output schema, and annotations, the description is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly. It covers the side-effect profile, output value, diagnostic quality, schema references, cost, and when to use it.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds valuable meaning by pointing to foldsquare://schemas/catalog-dsl.json for the grammar and foldsquare://schemas/product-fields.json for field IDs.

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 and resource: dry-run a catalog DSL document, compile and lint it, write nothing. It clearly distinguishes validation from mutation and explicitly routes non-trivial work before create_catalog.

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?

It gives clear usage context: use it for anything non-trivial before create_catalog, because it returns the would-be output plus fixable issues. It doesn't explicitly cover when not to use it, but the intended workflow is clear.

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