validate_mini_app_requirements

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool performs a validation check but doesn't describe what happens during execution (e.g., whether it makes network calls, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output looks like). For a validation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand at a glance.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (validation with 2 parameters) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose but misses behavioral details and usage context. Without an output schema, it doesn't explain what the validation result looks like, leaving gaps in completeness for an agent to effectively use the tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('app_url' and 'manifest_url') clearly documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining why these URLs are needed or how they relate to the validation. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 purpose: 'Check if your mini app meets Base featured placement requirements.' It specifies the action ('Check') and the target ('mini app'), but doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'get_base_app_compatibility' or 'get_base_deployment_guide' which might have overlapping validation aspects.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'get_base_app_compatibility' that might also check app requirements. The context is implied but not explicit.

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