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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context: it is free, and it does not return an authorization verdict—both beyond annotation scope. This enriches behavioral understanding without contradiction.

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?

Two short sentences with zero wasted words. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second clarifies a key limitation. Information is front-loaded and efficient.

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 three nested object parameters with no schema descriptions and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what to provide for the parameters, what a successful response looks like, or what errors might occur. The annotations cover safety but not usage details, so the description falls far short of what an agent needs to call this tool 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% and the description gives no information about the parameters 'action', 'approval', or 'authority'. The schema only states they are objects, so an agent has no idea what to pass. The description completely fails to compensate for the missing parameter documentation, matching the lowest tier.

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 (validation) and resource (structural and secret-safety), and explicitly distinguishes itself by saying 'Does not return an authorization verdict.' This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like check_action that likely return verdicts, meeting the highest bar for purpose clarity.

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 context: use for free structural and secret-safety checks, not for authorization verdicts. It does not name an alternative explicitly, but the 'Does not return an authorization verdict' clause signals when to avoid it. This is clear context without explicit exclusions, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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