Validate project references

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds genuine value by stating the check target ('missing/blank targets') and that it classifies invalid versus unresolvable references, but says nothing about how the 'limit' caps the scan or what a partial result means.

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?

Two dense sentences with no filler; the scope constraint is front-loaded directly after the purpose statement. Every clause earns its place.

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 rich annotations this is close, but with no output schema the description should at least sketch the shape of the result (list of issues? counts?) beyond the one-line note about invalid versus unresolvable. The undocumented 'limit' also leaves an agent without enough to call it optimally.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It restates the 'scope' enum values without adding meaning and never mentions the 'limit' parameter at all, leaving half the parameters undocumented in both schema and description.

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 uses a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('every indexed reference in the project') and enumerates what is covered (events, common events, troops, database records). That scope enumeration implicitly separates it from narrower siblings like database_validate_category or validate_event_page, though no sibling is named 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?

The 'scope: all | events | database' line tells the agent how to narrow the check, which is implied usage guidance, and 'Distinguishes invalid references from unresolvable ones' hints at what the tool can tell you. There is no explicit when-to-use versus when-to-prefer database_resolve_reference, find_references, or database_find_references, and no exclusions.

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