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

With empty annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the validation action but omits what happens on invalid input (e.g., error messages, side effects), permission requirements, or rate limits. This is insufficient for safe invocation.

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?

A single 12-word sentence that starts with the verb 'Validate' and directly states the resource and scope. Every word is informative and no redundancy; it is the model of conciseness.

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 one-parameter tool without an output schema, the description adequately covers purpose but misses return behavior (e.g., does it return boolean, errors, or a validation report?). Given low complexity, a 3 is appropriate—functional but not fully 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?

The schema has 100% coverage with a single parameter described as 'agent manifest as a JSON string'. The description adds meaning by listing the specific fields being validated (identity, endpoint, tools, pricing, payment), which helps the agent understand the parameter's content beyond a generic string.

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 clearly states the tool validates an agent manifest, specifying five concrete fields (identity, endpoint, tools, pricing, payment). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like `check_agent_policy` or `find_agent_resource`, which serve different purposes.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor when not to use it. Siblings like `check_agent_policy` might be related, but no comparison is provided. The description assumes the agent knows the context.

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