sap_sns_validate_records

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions checking records on-chain but does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, any side effects, or prerequisites. The behavioral transparency is adequate but incomplete.

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, well-structured sentence that immediately states the primary action ('Validate SNS records for SAP agent compatibility') and then provides specific details. No superfluous words.

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 no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., validation results, boolean, details). It does not. The tool is minimal for its complexity, missing essential context for an agent to use it effectively.

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 only parameter 'domain' is fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description's mention of '.sol domain name' adds no new meaning beyond the schema's description. Baseline score of 3 applies.

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 validates SNS records for SAP agent compatibility, specifying that it checks SOL, Pic, and TXT records on-chain. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like sap_sns_get_domain_records or sap_sns_check_domain.

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 implies usage for validating agent compatibility but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like sap_sns_batch_check_domains or sap_sns_check_domain. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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