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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only states 'well-formed check', implying read-only operation, but does not disclose return format, error handling, or side effects. Lacks sufficient behavioral context.

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 one sentence, very concise. However, this brevity sacrifices critical details that could be added without much verbosity (e.g., what the tool returns). It is appropriately short but under-informative.

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?

Given no output schema and simple input, the description should explain return value (boolean, error list, etc.) and behavioral aspects. It only covers purpose, leaving agents without necessary context to use the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description does not clarify the 'text' parameter beyond the schema's type. The description mentions XML markup but does not explicitly map to the parameter or specify constraints (e.g., encoding, size limits).

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 clearly states the verb (validate) and resource (XML markup), with a specific scope (well-formed check). It distinguishes from sibling XML tools like xml_format (formatting) and xml_to_json (conversion).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., json_validate, yaml_validate). No mention of prerequisites, limitations (e.g., no schema validation), or when not to use it.

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