validate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses only the absence of rendering; it says nothing about what 'check' means (schema validity? CSV parse errors?), what the result looks like, or whether it can fail silently. For a tool with zero annotation coverage this is thin.

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 front-loaded sentence with no waste. It is arguably over-compressed for a five-parameter tool, but the structure itself is efficient and earns its place.

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 five parameters (one nested options object), one required field, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should explain what validation means and what failure returns. A one-line sentence leaves an agent unable to predict the outcome of a call.

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 coverage is ~80%, so the schema already documents data, path, spec, and options. The description adds only 'spec or CSV,' which maps loosely to three of the five parameters and gives no format, precedence (data vs path vs spec), or meaning for the undocumented 'type' parameter.

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 verb (check/validate) and the resources it operates on (a spec or CSV), and the phrase 'without drawing' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling render tool. The name 'validate' alone is generic, but the description supplies the missing object of the verb.

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?

'Without drawing' hints at when to prefer this over render (dry-run validation), but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The alternative (render) is only implied, never named.

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