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

The description discloses a key behavioral trait—non-execution of code—which addresses the primary safety concern. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it does not describe return values, error handling, or potential limitations beyond the language support already in the schema.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the action 'Validate code' and includes necessary qualifiers like 'for security and syntax issues' and 'without executing it'. No wasted words.

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 tool itself is simple with two well-specified parameters, but the description omits any mention of return value or output format, which is significant given the absence of an output schema. It also lacks guidance on potential false positives or coverage limitations.

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?

The input schema already fully describes both parameters ('language' with enum values and 'code' as a string), and the description adds no additional parameter-level meaning. Baseline 3 applies due to 100% schema coverage.

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 a specific verb 'Validate' with a clear resource 'code' and defines the scope (security and syntax issues) while explicitly stating 'without executing it'. This distinguishes it from siblings like execute_code and check_security.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: to validate code for issues without running it. The phrase 'without executing it' provides clear context as a safe alternative to execution tools, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions.

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