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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, but the description adds genuine value: it confirms nothing is persisted or sent and discloses a privacy trait ('does not return personal details'). These are real behavioral facts beyond the structured hints.

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 tight sentences with zero waste, and the no-persistence constraint is front-loaded where it matters most for a read-only dry-run.

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?

For a validation tool with no output schema, the description tells the agent what it does NOT return (personal details) but never says what it DOES return—validation errors, a pass/fail flag, a normalized object. That missing return-shape cue is a meaningful gap for a single deeply-nested input.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the heavily-annotated nested schema already documents the trimming rules and the submitted_by.founder_authorized requirement. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond it, so the baseline 3 for schema-driven coverage applies.

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 (check/validate) and resource (project details against the intake schema), and the phrase 'without saving or sending an application' clearly separates it from its write sibling submit_project. It stops short of naming the siblings explicitly, but an agent can infer the read-only validation role.

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 'founder-approved' precondition and 'without saving or sending' phrasing imply this is a dry-run to run before submit_project, so usage is inferable. However, it never explicitly says 'use this before calling submit_project' or states when to prefer it, leaving the routing to inference.

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