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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds concrete behavioral context: no data storage, no email sending, no provider selection, no contact sharing. This helps set expectations beyond the annotation flags, though it does not describe the validation output format.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the read-only clarification is concise and useful.

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 tool with 13 parameters, the description relies appropriately on the rich input schema and output schema. It communicates the essential selection information: validation, missing-detail identification, and no side effects. The only minor gap is not explicitly tying it to the submit workflow, but that is not critically 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 description coverage is 100%, so all 13 parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('validate'), a specific resource ('a draft sauna project request'), and the intended outcome ('identify missing details'). It also clearly distinguishes itself from the submit sibling by stating it is read-only and does not send email or select a provider.

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 clearly frames this as a pre-submission validation step and explicitly lists what it does not do, which helps an agent avoid using it for final submission. However, it does not explicitly name submit_sauna_quote_request as the alternative or state 'use before submitting', so the routing guidance is slightly implicit.

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