tods_validate_feed

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully enumerates the validation dimensions, which is real behavioral information, but it does not say whether the tool is read-only, whether it raises errors or returns a report, whether it is expensive/long-running, or what happens on failure. The check list is helpful but the operational behavior remains underspecified.

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?

It is a single dense sentence that is front-loaded with the action and then lists the checks, with essentially no filler. Slightly long as one sentence but every clause names a distinct validation concern, so it earns its length.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description must be self-sufficient, but it never explains the return value or failure mode, which for a validator is the key information. The check enumeration partially compensates, but the agent still cannot predict what it gets back or how to act on results.

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 100% for the single feed_path parameter, so the schema already documents the one input, including acceptable directory and .zip forms. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 for a well-covered schema applies.

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 states a specific verb (validates) and resource (TODS dataset), then enumerates the concrete checks performed (primary key uniqueness, foreign key consistency, non-overlapping runs, time format, TODS_delete rules). It clearly conveys what the tool does, though it never contrasts itself with the sibling tods_inspect_feed, leaving the agent to infer the boundary between validation and inspection.

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 statement of when to run validation versus the sibling tools (tods_inspect_feed, tods_merge_supplements), nor any prerequisite or when-not guidance. Usage is only weakly implied by the name and check list, so an agent must guess the workflow position of this tool.

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