Validate Password Strength

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so safety is established. The description adds the exact validation criteria (12+ chars, upper/lowercase, number, special character) and the return shape ({ valid, errors }), providing useful context beyond the annotations.

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 well-structured with a clear opening sentence, a concise bulleted list of requirements, and explicit Args/Returns sections. It avoids unnecessary filler while conveying all essential details.

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 simple single-parameter tool, the description is fully complete: it explains the validation rules, the exact input, and the output format. There is no output schema, but the return object (valid, errors) is documented, eliminating ambiguity.

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 100%: the parameter 'password' is described as 'Password to validate' in both the schema and the description. The description adds no new meaning, so the baseline 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 opens with 'Check if a password meets security requirements', which clearly identifies the verb (validate/check) and resource (password strength). It is distinct from sibling tools like ordnet_validate_address or ordnet_security_tier by explicitly focusing on password validation.

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 clearly implies when to use it—whenever a password needs strength validation. It does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, but the context is unambiguous and no sibling tool overlaps with this function.

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