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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, establishing safe read-only behavior. The description adds value by confirming 'No persist; read = FREE per the fee schedule' and detailing the validation checks. It also mentions the return of a normalized definition and validation report, providing extra context beyond annotations.

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 extremely concise: two sentences and a bullet list, with no redundant words. It front-loads the core purpose and key details, making it easy for an agent to quickly parse.

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 the tool's complexity (one free-form object parameter), the description covers the essential purpose, behavioral traits, and validation checks. The output schema likely handles return value specifics. It omits details like output format or error handling, but the mention of 'validation report' and existing output schema mitigate this. A mention of example usage context would strengthen it further.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, meaning the single parameter 'definition' is completely undocumented in the schema. The description partially compensates by listing what the tool checks (schema, stream existence, rule-tree limits, risk caps, anti-gaming), implying required aspects of the definition. However, it still lacks explicit structure or required properties for the definition object, leaving ambiguity.

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 clearly states the verb 'Validate' and the resource 'composite definition'. It specifically says it returns a normalized definition and validation report, and distinguishes itself from sibling creation tools by explicitly stating 'No persist'.

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 provides context on when to use this tool: to validate a composite definition before creation. It enumerates specific checks (schema, stream existence, rule-tree limits, risk caps, anti-gaming rule), which helps the agent understand its applicability. However, it lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives, such as noting that this should be used prior to strategy_composite_create.

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