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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds substantive behavioral context beyond that: 'Local Rust only' (implementation/isolation), 'Shared workshop quota' (a resource constraint/rate consideration), and explicitly negates side effects ('no run, persistence or publication'). It even notes outputs (line diagnostics, exact hashes).

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and input constraint, followed by environment/behavioral facts. No filler.

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 a single param, rich annotations, and an existing output schema, the description covers purpose, input constraint, environment, and side-effect scope adequately. Minor gap: no explicit routing to sibling validators for other dialects.

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?

Only one parameter, and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate — it does, stating the value is a 'closed GardenScript 0.6 farm.v1 source, maximum 16 KiB,' which clarifies both the accepted format and the size limit (matching maxLength 16384).

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+resource: 'Validate a closed GardenScript 0.6 farm.v1 source.' Distinguishes from siblings like validate_gardenscript and strategy_validate by naming the exact grammar version (GardenScript 0.6) and dialect (farm.v1), so an agent can tell which validator to call.

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 implies when to use this (checking a farm.v1 source before running/publishing) via the contrast with farm_policy_run and 'no run, persistence or publication,' which is a soft exclusion. But it never explicitly says 'use this before X' or names validate_gardenscript/strategy_validate as alternatives for other dialects.

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