validate_filter

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: it returns independent save/live/historical support results and performs no mutation or execution, which is useful since there is no output schema.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the scope restriction and the prerequisite. Every sentence carries information; phrasing is terse but not padded.

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 read-only validation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is validated, that nothing is persisted, the return shape (independent support flags), and the prerequisite discovery step. It lacks detail on error/validation-failure behavior, which would round it out.

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?

With only 33% schema coverage, the description compensates well: 'exactly one draft rule or saved filter ID' clarifies the mutual exclusivity of rule vs filter_id, and 'optionally requiring its revision' explains the revision parameter's role as an optimistic-concurrency check. It does not detail rule sub-field semantics, but the nested schema description covers canonical units.

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 (validate) and a precise resource (exactly one draft rule or saved filter ID), then explicitly rules out saving and executing, which separates it from siblings like save_filter, update_saved_filter, and run_filter. An agent can tell what this does without opening the 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?

Provides clear prerequisites and exclusions: 'Does not save or execute the filter' and 'Discover canonical units first' (pointing to describe_filter_capabilities). It does not explicitly name the sibling to call first or state the when-to-validate-vs-get_saved_filter condition, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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