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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it validates only, does not decode bytes, returns default-filled canonical options, and lists the returned fields. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Three sentences, each carrying distinct information: what it resolves/returns, what it deliberately does not do, and the output fields. The most important constraint is front-loaded, and there is no filler.

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 description is largely complete for a validation/read-only tool with annotations covering safety: it names return fields and explicitly scopes behavior. It lacks details on failure modes for non-certified families and how defaults are computed, but these are secondary given the no-output-schema context.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the semantics of the three required parameters beyond their names. decode_options remains an opaque object, and the meaning of 'certified Reader family and version' is not elaborated. The schema regex provides some format guidance for family_version, but the description does not compensate for the lack of parameter 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 specific verbs 'Resolves', 'returns', and 'Validates' to define the tool's operation on the Reader family, and it explicitly distinguishes itself from data-acquisition tools by stating it 'does not acquire or decode bytes.' This makes its role clear against siblings like fetch, query_run, and get_table.

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 provides clear context by stating this is for the recipe and that it validates options only, implying it should be used before decoding or acquiring bytes. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, so guidance is good but not fully explicit.

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