validate_request

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states 'Validate' without detailing what validation entails (e.g., schema checks, error handling, side effects). The behavior is insufficiently disclosed for a validation tool.

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 a single concise sentence that is front-loaded with the key purpose. It is efficient, though slightly brief given the complexity of the input schema.

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?

Given the complex nested schema and presence of an output schema, the description provides basic context but lacks depth. It does not mention what happens after validation (e.g., return status or errors), nor does it elaborate on the validation criteria.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter (payload), the description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema by hinting at the content (planning request, config path). It does not explain the parameter's structure or required fields.

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 clearly states the verb 'Validate' and the resource 'planning request', with two methods of input: inline or from a config path. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on market offers, explanations, or hardware recommendations.

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 description mentions two modes of providing the request (inline or config path), giving some practical usage guidance. However, it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide any exclusions or prerequisites.

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