validate

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses that rawInput triggers a 'size then validate' sequence. States return types (blocking/warn/info and RFI items). Does not mention permissions or side effects, but validation is inherently non-destructive.

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 succinct sentences: first covers purpose and output, second covers usage guidelines. No redundancy, every sentence adds value. Front-loaded with core action.

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?

Adequately covers input modes and output types. No output schema, but the description lists what the tool returns. For a validation tool with two input paths, the description provides enough context for correct invocation. Minor gap: no detail on output structure beyond severity levels.

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 has 100% description coverage; individual parameter descriptions are detailed (e.g., GPU generations, region types). Description adds high-level context: mutual exclusivity of parameters and how rawInput triggers sizing. Bridge between schema and usage is clear.

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?

Clearly states the verb 'validate' and the resource 'a data center design against engineering rules'. Specifies rule categories (electrical, cooling, layout, safety, data) and describes output (severity-classified findings and RFI items). Differentiates between two input modes.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent to provide either designSummary or rawInput, with explanation of what each path does. No alternative tools exist, but the either-or guidance is clear. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use but sufficient given no siblings.

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