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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: invalid input yields exact line/column diagnostics, repair defaults to on, and each applied fix is listed — information the annotations cannot convey.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste, and well front-loaded: the first states what the tool does, the second details error and repair behavior. Both sentences earn their place by adding information the schema does not contain.

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?

With annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema to explain, the description supplies the remaining essentials: modes, repair default and semantics, and diagnostic behavior. It stops short of describing the response shape (formatted output vs. fix list), but nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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 0%, so the description carries the param burden, and it does substantial work: it documents mode (format/minify), sortKeys, and repair (including its default of true and what it fixes). Only the indent enum values ('2'/'4'/'tab') go unexplained, which is a minor gap.

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 opens with three specific verbs (validate, pretty-print, minify) applied to a named resource (JSON), plus the optional key-sorting capability. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like usesignal_diff_json or usesignal_encode_decode, which operate on different resources.

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?

Usage is implied through the mode keywords (format/minify) and the repair behavior, so an agent can infer when this tool applies. However, there is no explicit 'use this when' guidance and no reference to alternative sibling tools (e.g. diff_json), leaving routing to inference.

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