business_candidates_validate

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

With no annotations and a description that only states the name, there is zero behavioral disclosure. The agent cannot infer side effects, required permissions, or operation traits.

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 extremely short, but this is under-specification, not effective conciseness. It provides no actionable content, so brevity offers no value.

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 tool with 5 parameters (2 required) and no output schema, this description is completely insufficient. An agent has no idea what the tool expects, returns, or how to invoke it correctly.

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%, and the description adds no parameter information. The parameters (context, candidates, request_id, etc.) are entirely unexplained, including the required nested structures.

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 is 'business candidates validate', which merely restates the tool name with no verb, resource, or distinguishing detail. It does not clarify what the tool does or how it differs from sibling validation tools like code_facts_validate or business_mappings_validate.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description provides no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without any basis for selecting it over other validation tools.

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