validate

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

Description mentions determinism and cost ($0.01 USDC), providing some behavioral context. However, with no annotations, it fails to disclose important aspects such as side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error handling.

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 concise—one sentence plus a cost note—with no redundant words. It front-loads the purpose and key attributes efficiently.

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?

The description lacks information about the tool's output (e.g., structure of validation results, proof hash, pass/fail status). Without an output schema, this omission hinders the agent's ability to interpret responses correctly.

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?

The only parameter 'input' is described as a free-form payload with a link to an external schema, adding meaning beyond the schema's type declaration. This helps the agent understand the flexible nature and where to find detailed structure.

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?

Description clearly states it performs deterministic policy validation covering risk, compliance, and proof hash. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'risk_check' or 'riskoracle', which may overlap in purpose.

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?

Description implies usage for validation of risk and compliance policies, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No prerequisites or exclusion criteria are mentioned.

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