Validatore schema.org

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

With only readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, the description carries real burden and largely meets it: it discloses the exact validation layers (syntax, vocabulary with typo-correction suggestions, Google rich-result requirements, page consistency) and states validation runs 'in locale'. It does not describe output format, but the behavioral enrichment here is substantial.

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 long sentence, but front-loaded with the action and inputs, then organized by semicolon-separated validation levels so it is scannable. Dense without being wasteful, though it could be broken into two sentences.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should explain what a caller gets — it lists the checks performed but not the shape of the verdict. Given only two optional parameters and thorough scope coverage, this is nearly complete except for the missing description of results.

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% and both parameters are self-documented, so the schema already does the work. The description reinforces the url-vs-jsonld mutual exclusivity and the accepted jsonld shapes (oggetto, array, script), but adds no format syntax beyond that — baseline 3 is right.

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?

Names a specific verb (valida) and resource (dati strutturati JSON-LD), states both input modes (url or jsonld), and enumerates the four validation levels with concrete checks. This is far more specific than any sibling SEO tool, so the agent can distinguish it immediately.

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 jsonld parameter note ('prima di pubblicarlo') and the four-level breakdown make the intended use clear: pre-publish and post-publish structured-data validation. It does not, however, state when not to use it or name an alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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