Metadata Validation

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says 'Check' which hints at a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state that the tool is non-destructive, whether authentication is required, or any side effects. It also does not disclose what the output is or whether the record is modified, leaving behavioral uncertainty.

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 sentence with no fluff and is front-loaded with the core purpose. It is concise, but the brevity contributes to the lack of detail in other dimensions. Still, as a standalone statement, it is well-structured and efficient.

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 tool has two parameters (one a nested object) and no output schema, the description fails to describe the return value (e.g., list of missing fields, boolean, etc.) or how resource_type influences validation. This leaves agents without essential information to correctly interpret results or parameter usage. The description is incomplete for a validation tool with these schema characteristics.

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%, so the description must compensate by explaining the parameters. It does not explain what 'record' should contain or how 'resource_type' affects the validation. The phrase 'draft metadata record' is generic and does not tie to the specific properties. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, which is a significant gap given zero coverage.

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 a specific action ('Check one draft metadata record') and its purpose ('for important missing fields'). It identifies the resource (metadata record) and the operation (validation), and it is distinct from any sibling tool, none of which perform validation. This is a clear and specific statement of purpose.

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 usage: when you have a draft metadata record and want to check missing fields. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or mention any alternative. The context of 'draft' hints at a pre-publication step, but the guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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