Metadata Listing Check

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 the validation scope and a return shape ({ok, problems: [...]}), which is useful context beyond the annotations, though it does not detail error conditions or execution behavior further.

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 two compact sentences that front-load the core action, followed by a short usage note and return shape. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 read-only validation tool with rich annotations, a fully documented parameter schema, and an output schema, the description is complete. It covers what is validated, when to use it, the sibling alternative, and the return structure, leaving no critical gap for an agent.

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 100%, so the single app_dir parameter is fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable and earns the baseline 3 for high 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 names a specific verb (Validate), a precise resource (store/metadata/listing.json), and enumerates the validation categories (length limits, keyword rules, no word overlap, subscription disclosure, legal links). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling metadata_check by specifying that metadata_check is for a bare apple-metadata.md.

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 states exactly when to use this tool (before deliver_metadata) and names the alternative tool (metadata_check) along with the condition that selects it (for a bare apple-metadata.md). No inference is required.

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