Validate agreement structure

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the description is not burdened with basic safety. It adds behavioral context by explicitly listing what it does NOT validate and what it returns (warnings, keys, IDs), which goes beyond the annotations.

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 relatively short and front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence serves a purpose, but some small improvements could be made (e.g., merging 'This does not validate...' and 'Iterate on...' more tightly). Overall 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 one parameter, no output schema, rich annotations, and many siblings, the description covers its purpose, scope, return values, usage flow, and alternatives comprehensively. It is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100% with a single parameter (agreement) already described in schema. The description adds value by explaining that the parameter is the authored agreement JSON and that the tool returns specific validation results, but does not detail the parameter's structure beyond what schema provides.

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 only the authored agreement JSON structure, distinct from deployment validation, and lists return fields (participant variable keys, input IDs, state IDs, warnings). It uses specific verb+resource and differentiates from sibling tool preflight_deployment.

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 explicitly says when to use (iterate on agreement JSON until no blocking warnings) and when not to use (for deployment values, wallets, signer, permit data) with a clear alternative (preflight_deployment). It also mentions required scope (agreements.write).

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