Get cover validation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered by structured data. The description adds the dependency relationship to validate_cover_file, but says nothing about result states (pending/complete/failed), polling behavior, or availability timing — the behaviors that actually matter for a validation-result lookup.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the action and its precondition appear in the first clause. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 structurally simple (one integer id, no nested objects), but it has no output schema, so the description is the only place that could indicate what the validation result contains (status, error details, dimensions) and how to interpret an incomplete result. That gap leaves the definition only minimally sufficient for calling and interpreting the 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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Validation id.'), so the schema already carries the parameter meaning. The description only implies where that id comes from; it adds no format, source, or reuse details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get the result of a cover file validation') and ties it to the originating operation, so an agent can distinguish it from the interior counterpart (get_interior_validation) and from validate_cover_file itself. It stops short of naming the sibling it is not, but the cover-vs-interior distinction is clear from the resource wording.

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 'started with validate_cover_file' establishes the sequencing context, which is genuine when-to-use guidance. However, for a result-retrieval tool the critical usage question — whether the validation is asynchronous, whether the agent should poll, and what to do if the result is not ready — is left entirely implicit.

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