optimization.validate_problem

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that validation does not evaluate the problem and names what is checked, but it does not state side effects, permissions, error behavior, or read-only guarantees explicitly.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the key constraint that nothing is evaluated. The remaining sentences add concrete validation scope and one strict-mode behavior without waste.

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?

The tool takes a complex nested problem object and has no annotations, so completeness demands more than a short purpose statement. The description covers validation scope and strict mode, and an output schema exists, but it omits explicit routing relative to optimization.solve and deeper parameter guidance.

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 must compensate. It explains that strict mode surfaces non-deterministic evaluators and oversized budgets and lists validation targets, but it does not fully explain basic versus strict behavior or add much detail about the complex problem object.

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 states a specific verb and resource: validate a problem definition. The phrase 'without evaluating anything' sharply distinguishes it from optimization.solve, and the list of checks gives concrete scope.

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?

It gives one explicit usage rule for strict mode, saying it surfaces non-deterministic evaluators and oversized budgets. However, it does not explicitly say when to call this instead of optimization.solve, nor does it state prerequisites or exclusions.

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