Validate the registry

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It states that if anything is wrong, it returns valid=false with a list of issues, which is useful and specific. It does not explicitly state that the operation makes no changes to the registry, but 'validate' strongly implies a read-only check, and the failure-output behavior is well disclosed.

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 concise and front-loaded: it states the main action and scope first, then enumerates validation categories, then gives the return behavior. Every sentence earns its place without unnecessary 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?

For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides enough context to call it correctly and interpret a failure result. It does not describe the exact structure of the issue list or explicitly state the success return shape (valid=true), but these are minor gaps given the simplicity and purpose of the tool.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The baseline of 4 applies because the description still clarifies that validation covers the whole registry, eliminating any ambiguity about scope even though the input schema is empty.

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 comprehensive validation operation over the entire registry, listing specific validation checks like duplicate ids, broken cross-references, and circular references. This is distinct from the sibling CRUD and retrieval tools, so an agent can immediately understand what the tool is for.

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 makes the use case clear: run validation across the whole registry when integrity issues need to be checked. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives, but the sibling tools are all get/list/create/update operations, so the contrast is obvious. A brief note about running after mutations would be a minor improvement.

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