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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description reinforces this ('Nothing is published and no state changes') and additionally discloses the shape of the result (problem type, code, description, operation name), which is useful context beyond 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?

Front-loads the core purpose and return shape, then covers the equivalence to `rover client check` and the parameters. Dense but no wasted sentences; only mildly long for a three-parameter tool.

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, yet the description still summarizes the returned problem fields, and it covers all inputs including the variant default and the no-side-effect guarantee. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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%, so the description must carry the burden, and it largely does: it explains graphId, the operations array (each a body plus an optional name), and the variant with its 'current' default. It adds the default value semantics that the schema states only as a bare 'current' string, though it could say more about operation body format.

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?

States a specific verb (validate) and resource (client GraphQL operations against a variant's published schema) and returns a well-defined artifact (problem type/code/description/operation name). This is clearly distinguishable from schema-level siblings like LintSchema, RunSchemaCheck, and RunSubgraphCheck, which target schemas rather than client operations.

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?

Provides strong context: it is 'the same check that `rover client check` runs', nothing is published and no state changes, and the variant defaults to 'current'. However, it never explicitly contrasts when to use this versus RunSchemaCheck or LintSchema, so exclusions are absent.

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