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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), lowering the bar. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing the response contents — 'predicted moderation, issues, flags, and an authorization notice' — and by confirming non-persistence. There is no contradiction: 'without storing or publishing' aligns perfectly with readOnlyHint and idempotentHint.

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 sentences totaling roughly 25 words, with the most decision-relevant fact ('Dry-run') front-loaded. Every clause earns its place: the verb, the scope, the return contents, and the non-persistence guarantee. Nothing is wasted.

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?

The description covers the essential behavioral contract — dry-run semantics, no persistence, and the general shape of the response. But the tool has 14 parameters at 0% schema description coverage and no output schema, so parameter semantics and detailed output interpretation are left entirely to the agent. For a validation tool whose whole point is predicting moderation and issues, the description does not explain how to interpret those predictions or how the authorization notice relates to the authorization_attestation field in the schema.

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% across 14 parameters, and the description does not compensate. It never mentions thesis, interpretation, quoted_line, critical_role, challenge_id, provenance, authorization_attestation, or any other parameter. The only value it adds is the umbrella framing that the payload constitutes a 'Voice' contribution, which provides weak domain context. For a tool with this many constrained, required fields, the lack of any parameter guidance is a significant gap.

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 uses a specific verb ('Dry-run') and a specific resource ('the complete contribution checks'), and the title reinforces the key differentiator: 'Validate a Voice without publishing.' It explicitly names what the tool does not do ('without storing or publishing'), which cleanly separates it from sibling submit_voice and leave_quick_voice. An agent can distinguish this tool from every sibling without opening any schema.

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 clearly establishes when to use the tool: when you want the full contribution-check treatment but are not ready to commit. The phrase 'without storing or publishing' functions as a when-not, telling the agent this is the pre-submission step. However, it stops short of explicitly naming the alternative (submit_voice) or stating the condition that would route an agent there ('when you are ready to publish, use submit_voice instead'), leaving that inference to the agent.

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