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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool is stateless, does not persist server-side, and returns a normalized card. It also says it validates first. However, it does not disclose what 'normalized' means, what validation errors look like, whether the input card is mutated, or any side effects. The description adds some behavioral context but leaves significant gaps.

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 a single sentence that is concise and front-loads the main action ('Validate then return a normalized card'). It includes useful qualifiers ('free, stateless', 'no server-side database') without excess. It could be slightly more structured, but it 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?

The tool has one parameter, no annotations, and an output schema exists. The description explains the core behavior and the stateless nature, which is important context. However, it does not explain what the output schema contains, what 'normalized' means, or how this relates to sibling tools. For a tool with a nested object parameter and no schema descriptions, this is adequate but not complete.

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 schema only says 'card' is an object with additionalProperties true. The description says the tool validates and normalizes a card, which adds meaning, but it does not explain the expected structure of the card, what fields are required, or what normalization entails. With a single nested object parameter and no schema descriptions, the description should compensate more but only gives a high-level hint.

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 action ('Validate then return a normalized card ready to persist on the caller side') and distinguishes it from a server-side store by noting it is 'stateless (no server-side database)'. It clearly identifies the resource ('card') and the outcome. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like relationship_memory.retrieve or relationship_memory.validate, so differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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 usage: call this when you need a validated, normalized card to persist on the caller side, and it explicitly says it is not a server-side database. However, it does not state when to use relationship_memory.validate instead, nor does it mention any prerequisites or alternatives. The 'free, stateless' phrasing hints at when not to expect persistence, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance.

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