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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld=false/destructive=false annotations, the description discloses that the check is deterministic and local, performs no org write, invents no fixes, and caps input at 256 KiB. It also sketches the return shape (valid, errors with paths, missing_required, schema_version), which annotations alone 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, purpose and timing front-loaded, with no filler — every clause names a rule that is actually enforced. The second sentence is a dense nested run-on that would scan better as a list, which keeps it from a 5.

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 single-parameter, read-only, deterministic validator with an output schema already present, the description covers input constraints, scope of checks, and the nature of the result. Nothing an agent needs to invoke 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?

The single parameter's schema description coverage is 100% and already documents the object-or-JSON-string duality the description repeats. The 256 KiB cap is a real constraint but is more behavioral than parameter-shape guidance, 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 (check/validate) and resource (a Soundcheck UEF 2.0 import file) and enumerates the exact rule families enforced. An agent can immediately tell this is a pre-import validator, distinct from format-description siblings like get_import_format.

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?

"check ... before importing it" gives clear timing and intent, and "no AI, no org write, no invented fixes" clarifies what the tool will not do. It does not name any alternative tool or an explicit when-not condition, so it falls short of a 5.

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