validate_record

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety and repeatability are covered. The description adds real substance by naming the four validation dimensions, but says nothing about what a validation result looks like, whether failure is an error or a payload, or how strict each check is.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states the verb, the target, and the four checks in one pass. No filler, no restatement of the name.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining what a caller gets back from a validation call — a boolean, a list of violations, a severity scale — and it does not. Combined with an undocumented 'record' parameter, an agent cannot fully predict the call or its result.

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 tool has two parameters. 'record' is an untyped freeform object with no documented shape, and the description only vaguely gestures at 'freshness boundary' to explain the optional asOf parameter. With the schema contributing nothing, the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

Specific verb ('Validate') plus explicit resource ('a context record') and an enumeration of the four facets checked: schema, provenance coverage, claim support, and freshness boundary. It does not differentiate itself from the siblings (explain_source, inspect_ingestion, search_context), but those occupy clearly different domains, so an agent can still route correctly.

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 never states when to reach for this tool versus the siblings, nor any prerequisites (e.g., whether the record must already be ingested or fetched via search_context first). Usage is only implied by the tool's name and the enumerated checks.

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