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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false; the description adds meaningful context beyond that: AST-only analysis with no code execution, and the specific validation classes performed. It does not describe the result shape (issues list, error codes) or what happens on partial failure, so not a 5.

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?

Dense and front-loaded: the pre-publish purpose and AST-only safety note come first, followed by the checklist. No sentence is filler.

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 no output schema, the description should ideally say what a validation result contains (pass/fail, list of findings). It covers inputs and checks well, but leaves the return contract implicit.

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 does not add meaning about the files/files_ref/files_b64gz alternatives or project_uuid beyond what the schema already spells out.

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?

States a specific verb (validate) and resource (locally-authored bundle) plus scope (against the live platform, pre-publish) and enumerates exactly what is checked. This is clearly distinguishable from build_publish, build_smoke_test, and schema_validate by its AST-only, pre-publish framing.

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?

The 'BEFORE publishing' constraint gives clear timing context for when to call it. It does not name alternatives or exclusions (e.g., when to prefer build_smoke_test or build_doctor instead), so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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