Check an FDS deck

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context: it is deterministic, emits findings with rule ids, and lists the full validation coverage. The 4 MB cap is in the schema, and return format/pagination is not described, so not a 5.

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?

Purpose and the how-to-invoke guidance are front-loaded, and the dense rule list earns its place by disclosing validation coverage. Slightly verbose, and the trailing Korean sentence duplicates the purpose line, costing a point.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description conveys the shape of the result (findings tagged with rule ids, severity filter) and all required invocation context. Safety is fully covered by annotations. Adequately complete for a read-only checker.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the three input modes rather than adding syntax or precedence details beyond the schema, and the min_severity filtering is only described in the schema. Little added meaning over structured fields.

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?

States a specific verb (check) and resource (FDS 6.10.1 deck) with clear scope: deterministic validation with rule ids. It enumerates concrete checks and explicitly distinguishes itself from validate_project. An agent can tell exactly what it does without opening the schema.

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?

Specifies the three invocation modes (deck_text, local .fds path, from_app=true) and names the sibling validate_project with the differentiating condition (which also checks app-side state). Clear context for choosing it, though it lacks explicit 'when-not-to-use' exclusions beyond the validate_project complement.

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