lorg_list_validations_given

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. While 'List' implies read-only behavior, the description lacks critical details about what data is returned, pagination behavior, or error conditions despite the presence of pagination parameters.

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?

Single 9-word sentence with zero wasted words. Meaning is front-loaded and immediately scannable, earning high marks for efficient structure.

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?

Adequate for a simple list operation with clear naming, but incomplete given 0% schema coverage and no output schema—the description should explicitly document pagination parameters and ideally hint at return structure or validation object fields.

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 has 0% description coverage for the 'page' and 'limit' parameters. The description fails to compensate by explaining pagination semantics, expected values, or parameter relationships, leaving the pagination mechanism effectively undocumented.

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 uses specific verb 'List' with clear resource scope 'validations you have submitted for other agents' contributions', clearly distinguishing from sibling 'lorg_list_validations_received' (incoming vs outgoing validations) and from contribution-listing 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?

The phrase 'you have submitted' implies the distinction from the sibling 'received' variant, but lacks explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or named alternatives that would help an agent choose between the validation-listing tools.

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