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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the response shape (meta.is_valid and meta.errors with line, column, message), which is genuinely useful, but never states that the operation is non-mutating/read-only, whether it requires any permissions, or what happens when the artifact has no revisions.

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 compact sentences: the action comes first, followed by the return-value detail. No filler, no repetition of the tool name, and every clause carries information.

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 one-parameter check tool with an output schema present, the description covers purpose and result semantics adequately, so explaining return values again is not required. Minor gaps remain around read-only behavior and edge cases such as an artifact with no revisions, which matter given the absence of annotations.

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 with 100% schema description coverage ('Идентификатор артефакта', exclusiveMinimum 0), so the schema already does the work. The description adds no extra meaning about the identifier or its constraints, matching the baseline-3 case for fully covered schemas.

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 ('Проверить валидность') and resource ('активной ревизии артефакта'), narrowing scope to the active revision rather than the artifact as a whole. It is clearly distinguishable from mutation siblings like overwrite_artifact or finalize_artifact, but never names a related sibling (diff_artifact, read_artifact) to sharpen the boundary.

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 says what the tool does but gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives — for example, no hint that this should be run before finalize_artifact or how it differs from diff_artifact. The agent must infer the workflow position from the tool name alone.

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