Validate map events

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 real value by naming the five validation categories, but omits behavior an agent needs: whether failures are returned as a report or thrown, whether it stops at the first problem, and whether it has side effects on shadowed pages.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and scope, with the parenthetical efficiently enumerating the checks. Nothing is wasted, though the parenthetical list is dense and could be framed as the things validated rather than bare nouns.

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 read-only validator with no output schema and no annotations gap, the description covers what is checked but not the shape of the outcome or how errors surface. Given the sibling validation tools, an agent would benefit from knowing whether this aggregates all findings or aborts early.

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?

There is a single parameter (mapId) with 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the burden yet says nothing about it beyond the natural-language mention of 'a map'. The name and type make intent largely self-evident, so the gap is small but real.

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?

Specific verb ('Validate') plus a precise scope ('every event and page on a map'), backed by an enumerated checklist (structure, settings, references, positions, page shadowing). An agent can tell it is whole-map validation rather than the single-page validation implied by the sibling 'validate_event_page', though that contrast is never stated outright.

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, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. Usage is only implied by the scope wording: run this when you want an entire map checked as opposed to one page or project-wide references. An agent must infer the pre-flight/verification context on its own.

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