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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered by structured data. The description adds two genuinely useful behavioral facts beyond that: no network resolution and that results are 'bounded findings' (truncation tied to max_findings). It stops short of saying what a finding looks like or whether validation halts at the first error.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then input modes, then output framing. No sentence restates the title or repeats schema constraints unnecessarily.

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 seven-parameter, read-only validation tool with no output schema, the definition plus the rich schema cover the essentials: input modes, version support, no-network constraint, and bounded output. The main residual gap is return-value shape, which the 'bounded findings' phrase gestures at but does not specify.

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 71%, above the 50% threshold, so the schema already documents most parameters including mutual exclusivity of xsd and schemaFiles. The description reinforces the xsd-or-schemaFiles choice and frames schemaFiles as a 'local multi-file project with rootSchema', but adds no detail on xsdVersion behavior or the practical difference between 1.0 and 1.1 validation.

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 ('Check XML against supplied XSD'), and the phrase 'supplied XSD 1.0 or 1.1' implicitly separates it from schema-less siblings such as validate_xml. It does not name validate_xml or validate_e_invoice explicitly, so an agent must infer the split, but the purpose itself is unambiguous.

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 conveys operating context ('one XSD or a local multi-file project with rootSchema; no network resolution'), which tells the agent that remote schema URLs are not an option. However, it never states when to pick this over validate_xml or explain_validation_error, so selection guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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