d3p_validate-schema

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

No annotations provided, so description must cover behavior. It mentions returning validity and error details, but does not disclose permissions, rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only. Adequate but not thorough.

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?

Includes extra metadata like 'Category: code | Cost: 5 sats | Endpoint: validate-schema', which is unnecessary for agent usage. The description is not overly long, but could be more 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?

With an output schema present, the description need not detail return format. It states returns 'validity status and error details', which is sufficient. The parameter description is adequate for a simple 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?

The input schema only shows a single 'params' string, but the description explains that it should contain 'payload' and 'schema' objects as JSON. This adds critical meaning beyond the schema, compensating for 0% schema coverage.

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 explicitly states the tool validates a JSON payload against a schema and returns validity status and error details. It is distinct from siblings, none of which perform schema validation.

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?

No guidance on when to use vs. alternatives or prerequisites. The tool is self-explanatory for validation tasks, but lacks exclusions or context for when not to use.

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