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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. 'Validate' and 'against the v1 schema' convey a checking operation, and 'free' adds useful cost context. It does not explicitly state side effects, authentication needs, or what happens for valid versus invalid cards.

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 short sentences with the core action and schema version front-loaded. The '— free' aside adds cost/policy context and is not redundant. There is no unnecessary elaboration.

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 validator with an output schema, the description is largely sufficient: it states the target schema, the input format, and the cost. Return values are covered by the output schema, so their omission is acceptable. It is thin only on usage alternatives and explicit non-mutation guarantees.

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%, but the single required parameter is simple. The description adds 'Pass the card object as JSON', which clarifies the parameter's semantic role and serialization. It doesn't describe the card's internal fields, though the schema allows additional properties anyway.

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 concrete resource ('relationship memory card') and a named schema version ('v1 schema'), so an agent can clearly identify what the tool does. It doesn't explicitly contrast with the sibling 'relationship_memory_schema', but 'validate' is distinct enough among the listed tools.

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 intended use is implied: call this tool when you have a relationship memory card object that needs to be checked against the v1 schema. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives like relationship_memory_schema.

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