Validate Genome

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds value by explaining the hash's purpose and the bounded-schema constraint, which goes beyond the structured data. It does not repeat or contradict annotations.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The primary action and result are front-loaded, and the second sentence provides essential context about the hash's usage. Each sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the annotations cover safety, the output schema presumably defines the return format, and the description explains the hash's purpose, the tool is adequately complete. It does not cover failure modes, but those are likely in the output schema or not needed for a simple read-only validation.

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 parameter, and the schema already describes the genome object as 'bounded schema, versioned.' The description echoes this without adding new parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline but adds no extra meaning.

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 action (validate), a specific resource (genome), and a concrete outcome (return canonical genome_hash). It distinguishes from siblings like cost_check, validate_order, and audit_features by focusing on genome validation and the hash's role in tournament identity.

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?

It implies usage by explaining the hash's purpose (challenger_id, audit_request), but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when-not-to-use. The sibling names are clearly different, so context is sufficient though not explicit about exclusions.

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