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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the description is not the sole carrier of the safety profile. It nevertheless adds substantive semantics beyond the annotations: no submission, no retention, no eligibility evaluation, no clearance grant — the exact non-effects an agent must know to avoid mistaking validation for enforcement.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, with the scope statement front-loaded and the caveats ordered from operation to side-effect to input guidance. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and the description covers scope, non-effects, and input expectations. The remaining gap is the missing pointer to the authoritative schema source (e.g. get_api_schema) for the opaque 'request' payload.

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 coverage is 0% and the single 'request' property is a bare untyped object, so the description must compensate. It tells the agent what the value is validated against (the runtime REST screening schema) and that it should be synthetic, which is meaningful, but it gives no shape, format, or example of the payload and never points at where to obtain that schema.

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 and resource — validating a screening request against the runtime REST screening schema — and immediately bounds the scope with 'without submitting or retaining it.' An agent can distinguish this from the actual execution sibling (run_sandbox_screening) purely from the text.

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?

It states the operative guidance ('Use synthetic development inputs') and exclusions ('Does not check live source eligibility or grant clearance'), which tells the agent when this is appropriate versus when a real screening call is needed. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling alternative, so it is clear but not fully routing.

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