Validate a script

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint=false and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds genuine beyond-schema context: it runs offline without opening a website (fast), and it discloses the return shape ('{ ok } or the list of errors'), which matters since no output schema exists. Remaining gap is only the exact error object format.

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 offline/fast property and scope come first, the return value next, and the sibling routing last. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 low-complexity, two-param, read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, offline behavior, return shape, and the alternative tool. Only the structure of the returned error list is left unspecified, a minor gap.

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%, so both params (script, vars) are already fully documented, including the YAML/JSON-or-object union and the {{name}} variable substitution. The description only echoes 'fields, actions, variables' generically and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Check the structure of a script') and enumerates the checked dimensions (fields, actions, variables), then explicitly separates it from tourwright_check on live-site target existence. An agent can distinguish it from all siblings without opening a schema.

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?

Names the alternative tool and the exact condition that selects it ('To know whether its targets still exist on the live site, use tourwright_check'), and the schema text adds the prerequisite of reading tourwright_guide first. Both when-to-use and when-to-use-something-else are covered.

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