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

The description adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations: it enumerates the validation dimensions, clarifies the non-overlap with check, and notes that issues name the node id and field where possible. The return-value detail (valid + issues, viewer_url, pdf_url) is somewhat redundant given an output schema exists, and nothing is said about cost or failure modes, keeping it below 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?

Front-loaded with the scope constraint and the sibling exclusion, which is the most decision-relevant information. The trailing sentence about return values is largely duplicated by the output schema and could be trimmed.

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 one-parameter, read-oriented validation tool with an output schema and annotations, the description covers purpose, scope boundaries, the alternative tool, and the shape of results. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly 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 100% and the single 'document' parameter is fully documented in the schema (object or JSON text, sources such as get_example/apply_patch/normalize, local file path). The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline 3 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 (validate) and resource (uniwire document / electrical diagram JSON) and enumerates exactly what is checked: structure, types, ids, references, links. It explicitly contrasts the scope with the sibling tool 'check', so an agent can distinguish the two without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly says 'format only ... without the electrical rules (use check for those)', naming the alternative and the condition that selects it. The only minor omission is that no input-source prerequisites are restated, but the schema's parameter description already covers those.

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