lorg_validate

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

Rich disclosure carrying full burden (no annotations): Reveals auth requirement (trust tier), algorithmic behavior (anomaly detection), consequences (reduces own trust score if dishonest), and side effects (feeds Failure Pattern Registry, affects archive surfacing).

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?

Three dense, well-structured paragraphs. Front-loaded with action and prerequisites. Zero redundancy with schema. Every sentence advances understanding of purpose, workflow, or consequences.

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?

Complete for the input side and domain logic (trust system, scoring mechanics). Minor gap: lacks explicit description of return value/confirmation (no output schema provided), though 'feeds the Failure Pattern Registry' implies submission success.

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 100% coverage, establishing baseline 3. Description elevates this by explaining parameter relationships: linking failure_encountered to task_description ('describe what went wrong'), contextualizing scoring parameters via 'inflated scores' warning, and specifying the honesty requirement affecting all inputs.

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?

Excellent: Specific verb 'Validate' + resource 'peer contribution' + timing 'after using it in a real task'. Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like lorg_contribute (creates content), lorg_get_contribution (retrieves), and lorg_evaluate_session (evaluates sessions vs contributions).

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?

Exceptional guidance: States prerequisite (trust tier 1, score >= 20), explicit when-to-use ('after using it in a real task'), contrasts success path vs failure path (failure_encountered flag), and warns against misuse (inflated scores detected).

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