validate_case

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the validation purpose and input constraints but doesn't specify return format, side effects, or any additional behavioral traits. It implies a read-only audit but doesn't state it explicitly.

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 sentences: the first states the purpose, the second provides critical input instructions. It is front-loaded and every sentence adds 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain the return value or result format, but it doesn't. It thoroughly covers input and purpose, but the missing output behavior is a gap for a complete understanding. For a single-param tool, it's mostly complete but lacks return details.

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 single parameter case_json is fully described in the schema with format and example. The description adds the specific required fields (titular, responsable, datos_personales, derechos_solicitados), which goes beyond the schema's example and clarifies the expected content.

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 tool validates whether an ARCO case is ready to be drafted without critical legal gaps, using the specific verb 'Audita' and identifying the resource (caso ARCO). It distinguishes from sibling tools like audit_draft by focusing on case readiness rather than draft text.

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 provides clear input requirements: it expects case_json (a JSON string with specific fields) and explicitly warns not to pass draft text, which differentiates it from audit_draft. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use it beyond the draft text exclusion.

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