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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose the return behavior ('errors and stats'), but it does not explicitly state side-effect-freedom, permissions, or how the lng parameter affects messages. The verb 'validate' strongly implies a read-only operation, which partially compensates.

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 no filler. The core action is front-loaded and the return information is presented immediately and economically.

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 low-complexity validation tool with fully documented parameters, the description covers the operation and broad return shape. It stops short of defining what 'stats' contains or how lng alters messages, but these are minor gaps given the schema's parameter documentation.

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 coverage is 100%, with both `code` and `lng` already described in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail, which is acceptable because the schema carries the full meaning.

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'), a specific resource ('FlowZap Code syntax'), and the return shape ('errors and stats'). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like flowzap_fix (fixing) and flowzap_get_syntax (retrieving syntax).

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 the use case but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions. It does not mention alternatives such as flowzap_fix or flowzap_compliance_check, so an agent has no basis for choosing this tool over similar siblings.

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