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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It indicates a validation action but does not clarify whether the operation is read-only, what side effects may occur, or what the response format is. The lack of detail on permissions, output, or failure handling leaves significant ambiguity for an agent.

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?

The description is a single sentence that is clear and free of extraneous content. It efficiently states the tool's purpose without wasting words. This is appropriately concise for a tool with a single input parameter.

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?

The tool has no annotations, no output schema, and a single optional parameter. Despite the simple interface, the description does not explain what the validation returns, whether it checks all systems or one, or what constitutes a successful validation. The lack of output details and edge-case behavior makes it incomplete for a tool that performs a check.

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 input schema has one optional parameter (system_id) with 0% description coverage. The description does not mention the parameter or explain its purpose, leaving the agent to infer how to populate it. It adds no value beyond the schema's property name and does not compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Validate') and clearly identifies the resource (RTO/RPO targets) and the context (against actual backup/failover capabilities). It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'recovery_status' or 'bcm_gap_analysis' by focusing on validation of recovery targets.

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 description implies usage: an agent would use this when needing to verify whether recovery targets are feasible. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it provide exclusion criteria. The purpose is clear enough that a knowledgeable agent could infer appropriate usage, but no direct guidance is given.

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