w3c_validate_and_recheck

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether this is a read-only operation, whether it modifies pages, what 'recheck' implies, rate limits, or side effects. Being an alias to another tool, at minimum it should describe the canonical tool's behavior, which it does not.

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 extremely brief (one sentence). While brevity itself isn't a flaw, here it's under-specification, not effective conciseness. It wastes the tiny space it has on a deprecation notice rather than conveying tool purpose.

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 tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and a non-obvious comparative operation (baseline vs after), the description is severely incomplete. An output schema exists but the description gives no context about what is validated, what 'recheck' means, or how the results relate to baseline vs after pages.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. The description names the two required parameters (baseline_pages, after_pages) only via the schema, not in the text. The description provides zero explanation of what baseline_pages vs after_pages mean, what URL vs html fields represent, or what the 'level' enum controls.

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 is just a deprecation notice pointing to validation.w3c.validate_and_recheck.v1, but never explains what the tool actually does. The verb and resource (what it validates, why 'and_recheck') are entirely unspecified. An agent cannot infer the tool's function from the description alone.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Given the many sibling validation tools (validate_urls_raw, validate_pages, autofix_safe, validate_and_recheck), the description provides zero differentiation. The only hint is to use the canonical alias instead, but there's no explanation of what that tool does or when it's appropriate.

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