Validate an eval config

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral detail: "Makes no network calls" reinforces the closed-world claim, and it lists what the report contains (API call count, required env var names, unpriced models, personal-data guard outcome).

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 sentences, zero filler. The purpose and check list are front-loaded, and the behavioral caveat about network calls is placed last as a supporting note.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no elaboration, yet the description still summarizes the report contents. Combined with the enumerated checks and the no-network-call guarantee, an agent has everything needed to call this 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% with only two parameters, so the schema already documents both the config object and the markdown/json response_format. The description adds nothing about parameter syntax or the config's expected shape, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ("Check an eval config before running") and enumerates the exact checks performed (schema, embedded keys, HTTPS endpoints, template placeholders, valid checks), which cleanly separates it from siblings like modelfinder_create_eval_config or modelfinder_check_output.

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 phrase "before running" gives a clear precondition for when to call this tool. It stops short of naming an alternative (e.g. create_eval_config) or stating when not to use it, so it's clear context rather than full routing guidance.

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