Check configuration

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds value beyond that by disclosing the return shape ('valid' or the specific errors) and positioning it as a pre-reload gate, though it says nothing about permissions, timeouts, or validation cost.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by return format and workflow timing. No filler, and each sentence carries distinct information.

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 zero-required-parameter, read-only validation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, timing, and return values, and the lone parameter is fully specified in the schema. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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% and the single optional instance_id is fully documented in the schema, including the refusal-on-mismatch behavior. The description adds no parameter detail, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb (validate) and resource (the current Home Assistant configuration), anchored to a known equivalent (Developer Tools -> Check configuration). The 'Home Assistant' scoping cleanly separates it from siblings like esphome_validate and ha_get_config, which reads rather than validates.

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?

Gives an explicit workflow cue: run after editing YAML and before reloading. That is clear when-to-use guidance, but it names no alternatives or when-not conditions (e.g., versus esphome_validate for ESPHome configs), so it stops short of a full 5.

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