qa_validate_app_contract

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly states the operation is 'read-only' and 'bounded', which are important safety constraints. It does not describe output or failure semantics, but for a pure validation tool with no parameters the key non-mutation trait is clearly disclosed.

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, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the verb and the critical 'read-only' modifier. Every word contributes to the meaning; no filler or redundant phrasing.

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?

The description is adequate for invoking a zero-parameter tool and communicates the core purpose and safety profile. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it does not explain what the contract checks actually verify, what the tool returns, or how to interpret a pass/fail result, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema has 100% coverage, so there is nothing for the description to add. The no-parameter baseline of 4 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 states a specific action ('Run bounded read-only contract checks') and a clear resource scope ('health and all authenticated application-truth endpoints'). It distinguishes itself from sibling getters by being a validation pass rather than a single data retrieval, though 'application-truth endpoints' remains somewhat undefined.

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 intended context is implied: use this tool to validate the health and authenticated endpoints as a group. However, there is no explicit statement about when to prefer this over individual qa_get_* calls, nor any exclusion or alternative guidance.

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