validate_card

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states that the tool validates against a schema, checks required fields, and yields warnings for missing recommended fields. This adequately discloses the read-only nature of validation, though it does not detail output structure (but output schema exists).

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 concise, with an English lead sentence followed by German explanation. It is front-loaded and avoids unnecessary details. The Args section is minimal but effective. Slight redundancy due to bilingual text.

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?

Given the single parameter and the existence of an output schema, the description covers the core behavior well. It explains the validation logic and warnings. It could mention error handling or strictness, but overall is sufficiently complete for this simple tool.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description explicitly defines the parameter 'card_json' as a JSON string of the server card. This fully compensates for the missing schema description and provides sufficient clarity.

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 tool validates a server card JSON against a schema, checking required fields and giving warnings for recommended fields. The verb 'validate' and resource 'server card JSON' are specific, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'generate_card' (creation) and 'search' (discovery).

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 lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only describes the functionality without stating prerequisites, exclusions, or when not to use it. However, the purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer usage context.

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