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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by stating the tool 'Never executes code' and that it performs 'static' checking with an 'optional bounded source'. This reinforces non-execution and bounded input handling without contradicting the annotations.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The usage timing is front-loaded, the validation scope is enumerated compactly, and the critical safety constraint 'Never executes code' is stated plainly. Every sentence earns its place.

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 validation tool with complex optional inputs and an output schema, the description covers the essential context: when to use it, what it validates, and that it is non-executing. The presence of an output schema means return-value details are not required in the description. It could have added a note about expected input combinations, but overall it is sufficiently 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters and their meaning. The description generally maps to the parameter groups (imports, configuration, dependencies, versions, source) but adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the semantic weight.

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, 'statically check', and names the exact scope: RevoGrid imports, configuration, dependencies, versions, and optional bounded source. It also explicitly says 'Never executes code', which helps distinguish it from implementation or runtime-focused siblings. This is clearly differentiated from tools like plan_revogrid_implementation or inspect_revogrid_api.

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 gives an explicit usage context: 'Use before implementation handoff'. It also clarifies a key constraint, that validation is static and never executes code. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of complete routing guidance.

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