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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive for this analysis tool, consistent with the description. The description adds genuine behavioral value beyond that: it discloses the specific diagnostic classes surfaced (rule-shape identification, rule-order warnings, 'restore without view', 'sync-schema alone', bare allow '*'), which tells the agent what signal it will get back.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the parenthetical list of warning cases is dense but each item is informative. Slightly packed as one long clause, but nothing is wasted.

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 a rich annotation set, 100% schema coverage on the sole parameter, and a declared output schema carrying return details, the description does the remaining job: it tells the agent what the validator detects and how it reports broken vs. suspicious rules. Nothing essential to 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?

Only one parameter exists and schema coverage is 100%, with an inline example of the permission-rule shape already provided in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format details beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 for high coverage is correct.

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/check) and resource (token permission rules against the API schema), and further specifies the two classes of output: identifying the intended shape of a broken rule and flagging valid-but-likely-wrong rules. This is specific enough to differentiate it from siblings like check_write_rules and validate_sync_document.

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 context is implied by the purpose (validating an existing token's permission rules), but the description offers no explicit when-to-use trigger, no prerequisites, and does not name check_write_rules or any sibling as an alternative. Guidance is present only by inference.

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