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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says it validates and reports tolerance violations, but does not state whether the tool is read-only, whether conversion is performed internally, what happens on success/failure, what tolerance criteria are applied, or whether the input file is modified.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It efficiently communicates the validation target and the reporting outcome.

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 with full schema coverage, the core purpose is complete. However, with no output schema, the description does not explain the return format or what a tolerance violation report looks like, leaving a meaningful gap for an agent invoking the tool.

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?

There is only one parameter, input_content, and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage as a Base64-encoded FIT file. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb (validate), resource (round-trip FIT conversion), and scope (FIT → KRD → FIT), with an explicit reporting behavior for tolerance violations. It is clear enough to distinguish this from a basic validator, though it does not explicitly name or contrast with sibling tools like kaiord_validate or kaiord_diff.

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 round-trip conversion context implies when to use the tool, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose it over kaiord_validate, kaiord_diff, or kaiord_convert. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-selection criteria are provided.

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