Validate JSON-LD syntax

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that empty script blocks are flagged alongside JSON syntax errors, which is modest extra context, but it says nothing about limits (e.g. the 200000-char cap) or parsing behavior beyond the immediate scope.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every clause earns its place by naming the input, the operation, and the two failure classes reported.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be restated, and annotations cover the safety profile. Given the tool's low complexity and full schema coverage, the description is nearly complete, missing only a note on input size limits or the no-script-block case.

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?

Only one parameter, and schema description coverage is 100% ('Raw HTML containing JSON-LD script blocks'), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already states, making the baseline of 3 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+resource: parses JSON-LD script blocks in supplied HTML and reports empty blocks or JSON syntax errors. The scope is immediately graspable. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling seo.metadata, but that sibling is unrelated enough that confusion is unlikely.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of any alternative. The intent (validate JSON-LD in HTML) is implied only by the verb 'reports ... errors', leaving the agent to infer the use case.

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