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 provides none: no mention of safety, side effects, resource access, or return behavior. The phrase 'body discarded' hints at partial input usage but is too vague to inform the agent about what is actually done.

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 extremely short, but brevity here is under-specification rather than efficiency. It is not front-loaded with useful information; it is a cryptic fragment that does not earn its place. A concise, helpful description would communicate essentials in a few clear sentences.

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?

This tool has 9 optional parameters, no required parameters, and no output schema. The description provides almost no context: no indication of what the tool actually does with these parameters, what 'shape' means, what the output looks like, or any constraints. It is completely inadequate for an agent to call correctly.

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 coverage is 100% (each parameter has a description), so the schema already documents all nine parameters. The tool description adds no parameter meaning beyond that; it does not clarify how these parameters relate to the 'shape' check or which are relevant. Per the rubric, the baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high, and the description does not worsen it, though it also does not enhance it.

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 'OpenAPI version key shape, body discarded' is cryptic and fails to state a clear verb and resource. It suggests some kind of shape validation but does not explain what 'shape' means, what input it expects, or how it relates to OpenAPI. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'validate-json' or 'domain-shape', leaving the agent uncertain about its purpose.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description gives no context about use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent has no basis for selecting this tool over its many siblings.

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