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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior, and the description confirms no state changes. It adds that validation occurs against the published schema, but does not cover auth needs, rate limits, or other behavioral details beyond 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?

Four front-loaded sentences with no filler; each adds useful information about result shape, non-mutation, parameters, and variant default.

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?

Given the rich annotations and existing output schema, the description is complete enough to invoke correctly. It covers required inputs, optional variant behavior, non-mutating semantics, and the shape of validation problems.

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?

Top-level schema description coverage is 0%, but the description documents graphId, operations as a body plus optional name, and optional variant defaulting to 'current'. It compensates well for missing schema descriptions, though it does not specify operation body syntax or accepted variant values beyond the default.

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'), resource ('client GraphQL operations'), and scope ('a variant's published schema'). This distinguishes it from schema-focused siblings such as LintSchema, RunSchemaCheck, and GetCheckResults.

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?

Gives clear usage context by equating it with `rover client check` and noting that nothing is published. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like RunSchemaCheck or GetCheckResults.

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