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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive check. The description adds valuable behavior beyond that: refusals block going live, warnings highlight issues the person must hear, and it lists concrete warning categories. It does not fully describe the response structure, but it adds meaningful operational context.

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 front-loaded with the core action and then explains result categories and usage. The parenthetical warning examples are dense but useful. It is reasonably concise, though slightly packed into long clauses.

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 validation tool with no output schema, the description helpfully explains refusal and warning semantics. However, it does not describe the structure of the nested `spec` object, and it references a nonexistent `file` input. These gaps matter for an agent trying to construct a valid call.

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 the baseline would be 3. However, the description says 'Give the spec inline (`spec`), a file, or an example,' implying a file parameter that is absent from the input schema. That misleading input guidance lowers the score despite the schema already documenting `spec` and `example`.

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 states a specific verb and resource: checking an economy spec. It also explains the two result categories, refusals and warnings, and their consequences. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as xsolana_review or xsolana_simulate, so it falls short of a 5.

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 gives a clear usage instruction: 'Run it after every change.' It also says the spec can be supplied inline, via a file, or via an example. It does not state when not to use the tool or name an alternative, so it is not a full 5.

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