Validate database category

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one piece of real behavioral context beyond that: the diagnostics are 'advisory', implying findings do not block or mutate anything. It still says nothing about how findings are reported or whether validation aborts early on the first failure.

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?

A single dense sentence with no filler, and the check categories are front-loaded. It reads as a verbless noun phrase, which makes it slightly harder to parse than a leading 'Validates ...', but nothing is redundant.

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?

For a two-parameter read-only check with no output schema, the description adequately conveys the scope of checks performed. Gaps remain around what a result looks like, whether diagnostics are separate from hard errors, and the role of `ids`, which for a validation tool is information an agent would want before calling it.

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 coverage is 50%: `category` carries a description and a 13-value enum, while `ids` is documented nowhere. The phrase 'for a category or selected IDs' does add meaning by implying `ids` narrows validation to a subset of records within that category, which is more than the schema states. It does not clarify whether `ids` is optional, whether it is mutually exclusive with full-category validation, or how out-of-category IDs are treated.

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 names the resource (database records for a category or selected IDs) and enumerates the checks performed: type, enum, range, required native field, reference validation, plus advisory design diagnostics. That is specific enough for an agent to know what it gets back conceptually. It does not, however, contrast itself with adjacent validators such as validate_project_references or database_find_references, which also sound reference-related.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The description never explains when to pass `ids` versus validating an entire category, nor how this differs from the several other validate_* and reference-oriented siblings, leaving the agent to infer the choice from tool names alone.

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