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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add one useful behavioral fact: 'The body is discarded,' implying no persistence or side effects. However, it omits return format, error behavior, and any other side effects, so transparency is only partial.

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 core action is front-loaded, and the discard behavior earns its place as an important side-effect note. It is appropriately minimal.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotation, and the description does not state what the tool returns (e.g., a boolean, an Ok/error object). It also leaves ambiguity between 'body' and the 'json' parameter, and ignores the eight other parameters entirely. An agent could not fully predict invocation results from this description alone.

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 baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning: it does not clarify that the 'json' parameter is the 'body' it refers to, nor does it explain the many unrelated parameters. The schema already documents each parameter, so the description adds little beyond the baseline.

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 states a specific action ('Check whether a body is valid JSON') and a clear resource. It is clear about what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from sibling validation/shape tools such as domain-shape or jira-key-shape, so it misses the top score.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use validate-json versus sibling tools, no mention of alternatives, and no exclusions or prerequisites. The only implicit signal is that this tool is for JSON validation, which is not enough to route an agent correctly among the many similar shape-check siblings.

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