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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it does not explain what the tool returns (one boolean, per-format results, or a summary), how failures are reported, or edge-case behavior for empty/invalid inputs. It reveals only the surface-level validation action and format list.

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 efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists all supported formats without unnecessary prose. Every element earns its place.

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 is simple enough that a short description could be complete, but two critical elements are missing: the return shape/behavior and any clarification of the dual input/value parameters. An agent has enough to guess the purpose but not enough to reliably invoke it 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?

The schema has 100% coverage, but both parameter descriptions are generic tautologies ('Input to process' and 'Value to process'). The tool description adds no guidance about which parameter to populate, whether both are accepted, or which takes precedence, and neither parameter is required. This ambiguity makes correct invocation uncertain.

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 names a specific action (validate), a clear resource (a value), and enumerates the eight exact formats supported. It is easily distinguishable from the many individual validator siblings because it explicitly advertises multi-format validation in one call.

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?

'In one call' implies this is the tool to use when multiple formats need checking at once, but the description never directly says when to prefer this over the individual validate-* tools. Usage context is implied rather than explicitly stated, and no exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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