validate_fighter_manifest

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world) and the description is consistent with them. It adds genuine behavioral detail beyond the annotations by naming the rejection conditions (duplicates, unknown fields, invalid references, over-budget data) and the deliberate refusal to read files or register anything.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core verb, then failure modes, then scope limits. No filler or restated title, and every clause adds information an agent can act on.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the annotations already carry the safety profile. Combined with the enumerated rejection reasons and the no-file/no-registration exclusions, the definition is nearly self-sufficient for a one-parameter validator; only the input document's expected shape is left implicit.

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?

There is a single parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the burden. 'Raw fighter.json text' does tell the agent the string is inline JSON content rather than a filename, which is the key ambiguity, but it says nothing about the maxLength ceiling or the expected document shape.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Validate raw fighter.json text') and enumerates the failure classes it checks for. It never names the sibling get_fighter_spec, but the explicit 'raw ... text' framing does imply the non-file, non-registration scope, giving an agent enough to distinguish it without reading the schema.

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 closing clause 'Does not read files or grant registration' functions as a clear when-not: pass inline JSON text rather than a path, and expect validation only, not side effects. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating positively when to reach for this tool versus get_fighter_spec.

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