validate_og_activity

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says 'Validate' but does not describe the outcome (e.g., boolean, errors), side effects (if any), prerequisites for the activity object, or how 'targetLevel' influences validation. The behavioral traits beyond the verb are left entirely unstated.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded and free of redundancy. It is appropriately concise for a seemingly simple validation tool, though it omits details that would require additional sentences. The brevity is a positive for this dimension.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and a nested object parameter, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not disclose return values, validation criteria, required activity structure, or any error handling. For a tool that validates based on OG principles, the absence of any detail about what makes an activity valid is a significant 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?

The schema provides descriptions for both parameters (activity object, targetLevel 1-5), achieving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. It does not elaborate on what 'OG principles' entail or how targetLevel is used.

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's function: validating an activity against Orton-Gillingham principles. It uses a specific verb ('validate') and a specific domain (OG principles), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'validate_engagement_safety' and generation tools.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools include generators and other validators, but the description does not specify whether this should be used after generation or how it differs from 'validate_engagement_safety'. The intended use case is only implied by the name.

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