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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by naming the returned fields (valid, revision, issues, remaining_questions) and the follow-up routing, though it does not say whether all issues are reported or just the first, or whether results are cached per revision.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and its scope, then the return shape, then the workflow. Every sentence carries information; the workflow sentence is slightly dense but not wasteful.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by naming the returned fields, and for a single-parameter read-only tool it fully covers what an agent needs: what is checked, what comes back, and what to do next.

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?

Only one parameter, application_id, with 100% schema description coverage that already explains it comes from create_application. The description adds no further semantics about the ID, 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?

States a specific verb (validate/check a draft) and enumerates exactly what is inspected: answer types, allowed choices, date formats, required questions, conditions, and overflow text. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from generation ('without generating anything'), so an agent can tell it apart from generate_filled_pdf and update_application without reading schemas.

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 an explicit workflow: validate here, fix issues with update_application, then show the user and get explicit confirmation before generate_filled_pdf. The when-not condition ('without generating anything') is stated directly, leaving nothing to inference.

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