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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true). The description adds genuine context beyond them: validation uses the engine's own validator (so results match publish-time validation) and no publish side effect occurs. It does not disclose what a failed check produces or how errors are surfaced, so it stops short of rich behavioral detail.

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?

A single tight sentence with zero filler, front-loading the verb, resource, and the key constraint (no publishing). Nothing is redundant or padding.

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 validator taking a nested, fully undocumented object and returning no output schema, the description omits what a valid pack looks like and what the check reports back. The absence of any guidance on input shape or outcome makes this inadequate for correct invocation.

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?

There is a single required parameter, "pack," with a nested object and 0% schema description coverage, so the schema contributes nothing. The description names the resource type but never describes the pack's structure, required fields, or where to obtain one (e.g., sebbi_pack_reference or sebbi_list_packs), leaving the parameter effectively undocumented.

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) and resource (Signal Pack), plus a meaningful qualifier: the check runs through "the engine's own validator," implying authoritative results. The phrase "without publishing it" implicitly contrasts with sebbi_publish_pack, but the sibling is not named, so differentiation is left partly to inference.

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 clause "without publishing it" implies a check-before-publish workflow and hints at when this tool is preferable to sebbi_publish_pack. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no alternative tool is named, so usage is only implied rather than stated.

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