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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the burden and does reasonable work: it discloses the return payload (errors/warnings + self_sufficient) and spells out the actual Self-Sufficiency Contract rules (standalone autonomy declaration, no-backend data source, documented fallback). It does not say whether validation is side-effect free or what severity levels mean, leaving some behavioral ground uncovered.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, then constraints and return values follow. The middle sentence is dense and slightly run-on with its three quoted requirements, but each clause is load-bearing for skill authors.

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?

No annotations, no output schema, three parameters at 0% schema coverage, and a nested free-form `spec` object with no documented shape. The description never hints at what a calculator spec contains or what an error/warning record looks like, which is a serious gap for a tool whose whole job is reporting structured validation findings.

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% across three parameters, so the description must compensate. It implies spec pairs with 'calculator' and skill_md with 'skill', but never names the parameters, states that kind selects which one to supply, or says whether both may be passed. The `spec` object is completely opaque.

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) against two named resources (calculator spec, skill SKILL.md) and pins the moment of use (before submitting). An agent can immediately tell this is a pre-submission check rather than a creation or submission tool like create_calculator or submit_for_review.

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 phrase 'before submitting' gives a clear trigger condition, and naming both artifact kinds tells the agent this covers two workflows. It stops short of saying when NOT to use it (e.g., during iteration vs. final check) or naming an alternative validation path.

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