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

Annotations already disclose readOnly/non-destructive/closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that: not whether validation returns a list of errors, throws on invalid input, or how strict it is.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no waste, but it is under-specified rather than efficient—the terseness leaves the agent without actionable detail.

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?

Given two parameters with 0% schema coverage, a free-form manifest object, and no output schema, the description should explain manifest structure or error semantics. It does neither, leaving a significant gap for a validation tool.

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% and the manifest parameter is an untyped free-form object while token is undocumented; the description adds nothing about the shape of a manifest or what token is for. An agent gets no help constructing a valid call.

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 and resource: 'Validate a declarative experience manifest.' An agent knows what it does, but the description offers no distinction from sibling tools like experiences_preview or experiences_apply, which also operate on experience manifests.

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?

No guidance on when to call this versus experiences_preview or experiences_apply, nor on prerequisites (e.g., whether a token is required for private manifests). Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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