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

The description discloses that the body is discarded, which is a useful side-effect note. But with no annotations, the description fails to explain return behavior, side effects, permissions, or whether the validation is purely local. This falls short of the full transparency burden.

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 a single, direct sentence with no wasted words. The behavioral note 'The body is discarded' is front-loaded and useful. Each word 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?

Even with a fully documented schema, the tool has 9 optional parameters and no output schema or annotations. The description does not tell the agent which parameter is the 'body' to validate, what a successful validation returns, or how to interpret the many unrelated parameters. Given the tool's complexity, the description is under-specified.

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?

The schema provides 100% parameter description coverage, including 'json' as JSON text to validate and disclaimers like 'discarded after the check'. The description itself adds no new parameter guidance, but does not need to because the schema already documents all parameters. 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 clearly states the verb and resource: 'Check whether a body is valid JSON.' It distinguishes the tool as a JSON validator without confusion. However, it lacks an explicit sibling distinction and uses 'body' without mapping it to the schema's 'json' parameter.

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 such as xml-ok, browser-url-ok, or domain-shape. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or which parameter should be supplied for the validation. The only implied context is the tool name itself.

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