ECO Validate

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description adds details about the validation rules and the return format ({ok, problems}). It clarifies the non-mutating nature and the success criteria, which is consistent with the 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?

The description is fairly compact and front-loads the main purpose, but it includes extraneous references like 'issue #142, C3' and the 'cheap front door' metaphor that do not help an agent invoke the tool. These add noise without adding actionable value.

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 single-parameter read-only validation tool, the description provides the return format and specific validation criteria, which is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior. It does not cover edge cases like error handling, but the annotations and simple signature make this gap minor.

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?

The schema has one object parameter with no field descriptions (0% coverage), and the description only says 'eco: the ECO object.' The validation rules hint at required subfields (id, affected items, disposition, effectivity) but do not explicitly document their structure. This does not sufficiently compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 verb and resource: 'Validate an ECO record', and enumerates the exact checks performed (schema stamp, id + affected item set, disposition, effectivity). This clearly distinguishes it from other *_validate sibling tools that target different entities.

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 'the cheap front door' implies this is a lightweight preliminary check, but the description does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor what conditions would make a more thorough validation necessary. There is context but no clear when-not-to-use guidance.

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