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

Annotations already cover the safety profile via readOnlyHint=true, so the description's burden is lower. It still adds a meaningful behavioral trait not in the annotations: results are retained for only 24 hours, which tells the agent the call can fail or return nothing after expiry.

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?

Two sentences with no waste; the purpose and the originating condition are front-loaded, with the retention caveat trailing appropriately.

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 single-param read tool with no output schema, this is nearly complete: it explains origin, status values, and retention. It could say more about what the 'result' contains once the validation finishes, but nothing critical is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the single param is already documented as 'The id validate_xml returned.' The description reinforces up front that the id comes from validate_xml, but adds no format or syntax detail 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 names the specific resource (a validation), what it returns (status and result), and ties it directly to the sibling tool validate_xml and the exact condition that produces a follow-up need. An agent can distinguish it from validate_xml or explain_error without opening the schema.

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 states the precise trigger for use: a validation that was still 'queued' or 'running' when validate_xml returned. This is strong contextual guidance, though it does not explicitly state when-not to use it (e.g., after the 24-hour window has expired).

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