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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It hints at a 'shape check' and discards the body, but does not state whether the tool is read-only, what it returns (only 'def count'), or what the 'def count' represents. The schema descriptions add that inputs are discarded, but the description itself is insufficient for a tool with 9 parameters and no safety 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 extremely short (five words) and front-loaded, which is efficient. However, its brevity comes at the cost of clarity, but for conciseness it earns a high score.

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?

Given the complexity (9 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain the tool's purpose, its return value ('def count'), or how to use it, leaving the agent with no context beyond the schema fields.

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%, so the schema already documents all nine parameters in detail, including that they are discarded after checks. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'USD def count, body discarded' is cryptic and largely a tautology of the name 'usd-ok'. It does not clearly state what the tool does (a shape/validity check returning a count), which is only inferable from the schema's parameter descriptions and the sibling list. The agent cannot tell from the description alone what 'USD' stands for or what the tool validates.

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 sibling list contains many similar shape-check tools (validate-json, file-path-ok, domain-shape, etc.), but the description does not reference any of them or explain when this specific check applies.

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