fofa_validate_query

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the behavioral fact that checks are performed locally and do not consume quota, which is beyond the annotations. This gives the agent confidence that invoking it has no side effects and no cost, though it does not describe what happens on success/failure or the result format.

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 sentence that is directly informative and front-loaded with the core purpose. It avoids filler and every word earns its place. It is optimally concise.

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 tool is simple with one parameter, and an output schema exists (not shown but present) which might clarify return values. The description does not state what the output looks like (e.g., a boolean, error list), but for a validation tool with strong annotations and a clear purpose, this is a minor gap. It is adequate but not complete.

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 schema has a single 'query' parameter with 0% description coverage, so the description carries the full burden of explaining its semantics. The description only says 'local syntax checks,' which implies the query is a FOFA query string, but it does not specify the expected format, examples, or what constitutes a valid query. Given zero coverage, the description is inadequate to guide parameter usage.

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 clear verb ('Perform') and resource ('local syntax checks'), and adds a key differentiator: 'without spending FOFA quota.' This distinguishes it from search tools like fofa_search that execute and consume quota, but it does not explicitly contrast with fofa_syntax, which likely provides syntax rules. So it is clear but not fully differentiated from all siblings.

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 phrase 'without spending FOFA quota' implies when to use it (when you want a free syntax validation), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. It neither lists conditions for selection nor excludes scenarios like actually running a search. The usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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