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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the tool's read-only validation nature (returns a receipt, no mutation implied) and specifies the exact checks performed, plus the caveat about not touching local files. It could explicitly state there are no side effects, but the information provided is substantive and transparent.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and a detailed list of compliance checks, then adds the crucial scoping note about generation_id vs local files. Every clause earns its place; 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?

For a validation tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains what it returns (a receipt), what it validates (list of checks), and the input requirement. It doesn't specify the receipt's format or error handling, but those are not strictly necessary for an agent to call it correctly, given the tool's simplicity.

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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage for generation_id, including a description of ownership. The tool description reinforces that it validates by generation_id and not files, adding slight contextual value, but doesn't elaborate on format or additional constraints beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the parameter documentation.

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 (return), resource (Roblox compliance receipt), and scope (every asset in a generation). It lists concrete checks (triangle target, mobile invisibility, dimensions, texture, export availability) and clarifies it operates on generation_id, not local files, distinguishing it from sibling tools like download_asset or generate_asset.

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 explicitly clarifies the input is a generation_id owned by the API key and that it validates generated assets, not local files. This provides clear context for when to use it (for compliance checks on generations) and implicitly differentiates from alternatives like get_generation or generate_variants, though it doesn't name them explicitly.

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