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

The description adds the behavioral detail that it does not publish, which is not fully captured by annotations (readOnlyHint is false, so the tool might mutate something). However, it doesn't clarify whether validation has side effects or what happens beyond returning results. IdempotentHint and destructiveHint are already present, but the description contributes the non-publishing aspect.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose efficiently. It has no filler and is easy to parse, though it is sparse on detail.

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 validation tool with no output schema, the description should clarify what problems are checked, what the response format is, and how to interpret warnings or errors. None of this is provided. The tool is more complex than the description suggests, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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 any of the parameters (input, action, resource, request_id). The agent must rely solely on the schema, which is minimal. 'include_warnings' is self-descriptive but not addressed in the description. The tool description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 action ('Validate') and the resource ('interview-plan draft'), and the phrase 'without publishing it' distinguishes it from publish operations. This is unambiguous and immediately identifiable among the many draft-related siblings.

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 implies this is a pre-publish check but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like publish_preview or other validation tools. No mention of scenarios or exclusions leaves the agent to infer usage context.

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