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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only' and 'never creates a listing or payment.' It adds meaningful behavioral context about what is validated without contradicting the 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?

Two short sentences are front-loaded with 'Read-only validation' and every clause contributes either scope or reassurance. There is no filler or repetition beyond what is 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 one-parameter read-only tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description adequately covers the validation subject and side-effect profile. It does not explain return values, but the output schema handles that; a minor gap is omitting resource_id semantics.

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 description never mentions resource_id or explains how it feeds the validation. The single parameter is fairly self-descriptive from its name and UUID pattern, but the description still leaves the agent to infer the parameter's role.

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 identifies the action ('validation'), the target resource ('organic_resource'), and the specific validation dimensions (source provenance, canonical endpoint, controller state). It does not explicitly differentiate from the similar-sounding sibling inspect_organic_resource, so it misses the top score.

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 a pre-flight, read-only validation context and explicitly excludes listing/payment creation, but it never states when to choose this tool over inspect_organic_resource or other siblings. Usage guidance is inferred rather than explicit.

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