validate_index

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates a safe read operation. The description adds substantial behavioral detail: exactly which integrity checks are performed (SQLite PRAGMA, row/column comparison, content hash), the fact that stale-lock state is reported, and the possible return values. This goes far beyond the annotation and gives the agent a precise model of tool behavior.

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 three sentences long, with the purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. The second sentence details exactly what actions are taken, and the third states the return status. There is no fluff; every sentence adds necessary information.

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 tool has a simple single-parameter schema, no output schema, and one annotation. The description fully covers what the tool does, how it does it, and what it returns. It also references sibling index_local for context, making it complete for selection and invocation.

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 schema already provides a description for the single 'dataset' parameter (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds meaning by clarifying that the dataset must be an indexed dataset (since it validates 'an indexed dataset's on-disk integrity'), which refines the otherwise generic parameter description.

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 begins with a specific verb 'Verify' and a clear resource 'an indexed dataset's on-disk integrity.' It then lists concrete operations (PRAGMA integrity_check, row/column cross-check, hash verification) and the output status values, making it fully distinguishable from sibling tools like index_local or get_dataset_health.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: to validate an indexed dataset, especially after potential interrupted index_local runs. It provides rich context (cross-checking against index.json, stale-lock reporting) but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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