validate_one_pager_svg

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the key behavioral context that this tool avoids passing large payloads through chat, which is a meaningful operational constraint beyond the annotations. It doesn't detail validation failure behavior, but the annotations carry the main safety burden.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the alternative routing is stated in the second sentence. Every word 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?

For a read-only validator with no output schema, the description covers the core usage context: what input is expected, when to use it, and why it exists. It doesn't describe the return value or validation criteria, but given the annotations and schema richness, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 67%: the 'svg' and 'template' parameters have descriptions, while 'mode' only has an enum and default. The description adds context about the svg parameter ('Full standalone one-pager SVG markup') and the template parameter ('Expected locked one-pager template id'), but doesn't add meaning beyond the schema for 'mode'. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does most of the work.

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 identifies the tool as a compatibility validator for callers that already hold complete SVG markup, and explicitly distinguishes it from validate_one_pager_file. The verb 'validate' plus the resource 'one_pager_svg' makes the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('callers that already hold complete SVG markup') and when not to ('For normal one-pager workflows use validate_one_pager_file'), naming the alternative and the reason (avoid passing large SVG and embedded-image payloads through chat). This is clear routing guidance.

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