qa

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description confirms a read-only QA operation. It adds the '7-check' detail but doesn't elaborate on outcomes or potential side effects beyond what annotations cover.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with key purpose 'Persona Alignment Gate'. No wasted words, but could be structured with more detail on process or outputs.

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?

Missing information about output or return value. Since no output schema exists, the description should indicate what the tool returns (e.g., pass/fail status). It also lacks detail on the scope of 'copy' or what happens after the gate.

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 100% for the single parameter 'market_name', which is described as 'The market/pipeline slug'. The description adds no additional parameter information, so it meets baseline but provides no extra value.

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 clearly states the tool is a 'Persona Alignment Gate' with 7 checks for copy alignment with buyer persona. It specifies the verb (QA) and resource (copy alignment), but doesn't differentiate from sibling validation tools like validate_check or validate_decide.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage for checking persona alignment but doesn't mention when not to use or provide comparisons to similar tools among the siblings.

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