Validate Port-In

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context that this is a dry-run validation and explicitly does not submit anything, though it repeats the point and says nothing about the validation 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 short and front-loads the validation-only nature of the tool. However, 'without submitting anything' and 'Does not submit' are redundant, costing a sentence without adding new meaning.

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?

For a five-parameter nested validation tool with no output schema, the description covers the core dry-run behavior and submission alternative. It leaves gaps around what a validation result looks like and any prerequisites such as fetching requirements first, though the schema hints at those dependencies.

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 description coverage is only 40%, and the description adds no information about the five required parameters. It does not explain countryCode, msisdn, executionDate, or how the nested fields object should be populated beyond what the schema already partially documents.

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: checking port-in data against Telgea rules without submitting. It clearly distinguishes this validation tool from the submission path by naming telgea_prepare_change kind=submit_port_in.

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?

Explicitly says when to use this tool (to validate without submitting) and where submission should go instead. The alternative path is named directly, leaving little ambiguity for an agent choosing between validation and submission.

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