validate_temporal_rights

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It lists the key checks performed (validity window, grace period, supersession, challenge window) but does not disclose side effects, return values, error behavior, or how invalidity is reported. This leaves significant ambiguity for a validation tool.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. It opens with the primary verb and resource, then lists the validation aspects in a concise, comma-separated format. Every clause adds value.

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?

There is no output schema or annotations, so the description must explain return values and failure semantics; it does neither. It also omits one schema parameter (effective_at), leaving the description incomplete for a 6-parameter validation tool.

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 low (33%), so the description must compensate. It adds semantic meaning by connecting checks to parameters (grace period ↔ grace_until, supersession ↔ superseded_at, challenge window ↔ challenge_until), but it omits the 'effective_at' parameter entirely and doesn't clarify parameter formats beyond the minimal 'ISO datetime' notes.

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 uses a specific verb ('Validate') and names the exact resource ('a TemporalRights object'), then enumerates the checked aspects (validity window, grace period, supersession, challenge window). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling check/validate tools that target other concerns (e.g., retention, purpose, jurisdiction).

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 description implies usage for validating TemporalRights objects but gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like check_retention_expired or resolve_rights_propagation. There are no exclusions or context cues, only the inferred purpose.

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