Validate classification codes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that validation is scoped to a single named classification version and operates on a batch of codes, but it discloses nothing about the return semantics or what happens to invalid codes.

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 sentence with zero filler, front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every phrase (exact, one named, version) adds scoping 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?

Because an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values, and it correctly covers the batch-validate-single-version model. However, with 0% parameter description coverage and no usage guidance among nine siblings, it is only minimally complete for an agent choosing between this and search_codes or recommend_classifications.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden for both parameters. It clarifies that 'codes' are exact strings and 'classification_id' refers to one named version, but it gives no format details, no source for the identifier, and no indication of how validation results map back to individual codes.

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 verb (validate) and resource (codes) with a scoping qualifier ('exact', 'one named classification version'). The word 'exact' implicitly distinguishes it from fuzzy-search siblings like search_codes and recommend_classifications, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance. The phrase 'exact codes' weakly implies this is for codes you already hold rather than discovery, but no alternative tool is named and no prerequisites or context are given.

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