Validate CityJSON completely

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it does so well: it names the two validators run, explains that the result is combined, and directs the agent to geometry.reportSummary for the complete invalidObjectIds list. It stops short of explicitly stating whether the operation is read-only or what other result fields exist, but the core behavior is clearly disclosed.

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?

Two dense sentences, each earning its place: the first states the action and scope, the second supplies the most useful operational detail (where to find invalidObjectIds). No fluff or repetition.

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?

With no output schema, the description appropriately highlights the key return field, geometry.reportSummary, and explains its reliability for follow-up subsets. It is sufficient for confident invocation, though a bit more detail about the overall result shape would make it fully complete.

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?

There is only one parameter, dataset_id, and the schema already describes it for 100% coverage. The description does not add parameter-specific guidance beyond implying the dataset is the target of validation, 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 states a concrete action: run cjval and val3dity and produce a combined structural plus geometric validation result. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like cityjson_validate_schema and cityjson_validate_geometry, which cover only one of those aspects.

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 tool is positioned as the holistic validation entry point by advertising both structural and geometric checks in one call. That gives the agent a clear reason to pick it over the split validate_schema/validate_geometry siblings, though it does not explicitly spell out when to prefer those alternatives.

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