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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context: the login prerequisite, validation against the live screen, and the specific output (attachment set and whether submission is allowed). This goes beyond the structured metadata.

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 with no filler. The critical prerequisite is front-loaded, followed by the action and its read-only nature. Every clause earns its place.

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 4-parameter tool with no output schema, the description explains purpose, prerequisite, return value (attachment set and allowed flag), and safety profile. It is sufficient for correct invocation, though it could elaborate on error conditions or the exact format of the attachment set.

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%, so parameters are already well-documented in the schema. The tool description adds the 'same account_link_id' constraint in the login prerequisite, but otherwise does not elaborate on parameter semantics, warranting the baseline 3.

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 states a specific verb ('validate') and resource ('work24 subsidy draft'), and explicitly frames it as a read-only dry run before submission. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like submit, delete, modify, and withdraw.

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?

It clearly states the prerequisite login call with the same account_link_id and positions the tool as 'the mandatory dry run before submit.' This tells the agent when to invoke it, though it does not explicitly name the alternative submit tool.

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