tutor_card_validate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses the COPPA conditional rule as an extra validation step, which is helpful. However, it does not convey basic behavior such as whether the tool is read-only, what happens on validation failure, or the format of the output (e.g., boolean, error list, or full report).

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 a single, concise sentence (21 words) that is front-loaded with the verb 'Validate' and immediately conveys the core action. Every word is informative, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the single parameter and lack of output schema, the description adequately explains the validation logic and the COPPA rule. However, it omits crucial details about the return value (e.g., is it a boolean, a list of errors, or a success indicator?), which impacts an agent's ability to process results. The tool is part of a validation suite, but the description could be more self-contained.

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 input schema has only one parameter (document_json) with 0% description coverage. The description compensates by explaining that the parameter should be an 'AI Tutor Card JSON document' and that validation is against the v0.1 schema with a specific rule. This adds meaningful context beyond the parameter name and type.

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 uses the specific verb 'Validate' and clearly identifies the resource as 'AI Tutor Card JSON document against the v0.1 schema'. It also highlights the inclusion of a specific conditional rule (COPPA), which differentiates it from related tools like tutor_card_inspect or tutor_card_coppa_check.

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 implies use when validating a Tutor Card document, but does not provide explicit 'when to use' vs 'when not to use' guidance. Alternative tools such as tutor_card_inspect (for inspection) are not mentioned, and no prerequisites or success criteria are stated.

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