meta validate query

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds value beyond annotations by stating the tool returns errors and warnings and is meant to run before execution, which clarifies its behavioral role without contradicting the hints.

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 short sentences with zero filler. The core purpose is front-loaded ('Validate... BEFORE executing'), and the return type is stated immediately after. Every word 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?

For a simple validation tool with only 3 parameters, full schema coverage, a safety profile in annotations, and an output schema present, the description covers purpose, timing, and usage completely. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 parameters are already well documented. The description mentions 'metric/breakdown combination', which loosely maps to metrics and breakdowns, but adds no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Validate') and resource ('metric/breakdown combination'), which clearly states what the tool does. It also adds the temporal context 'BEFORE executing' and names its output ('errors and warnings'), making it unambiguous and distinct from the many get_* siblings.

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 final sentence, 'Use this to check if your query will work,' gives explicit when-to-use guidance. It doesn't name specific alternatives or exclusions, but the pre-execution validation role is clear enough for an agent to select it over execution tools like meta_get_insights.

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