Tell Check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that each problem includes a remediation hint and that write operations are blocked while problems exist — real behavioral value. However, it never states whether the check itself is read-only or has side effects, nor any permission or cost profile.

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 tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource followed by the specific checks and then the downstream consequence. Every clause contributes; no 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 one-parameter validator with an output schema, the description covers what is validated and why it matters, leaving return-value detail to the schema. The main gap is the unexplained project parameter, which is minor given the tool's simplicity.

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?

There is one required parameter (project) at 0% schema coverage, so the description should compensate. 'The song's tell ledger' weakly implies the scoping, but the description never mentions the project parameter, its expected format, or what happens if an unknown project is passed.

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 specific verb and resource ('Validate the song's tell ledger') and enumerates exactly what is checked: unknown ids, out-of-order times, non-JSON or incomplete rows, closed tells without a pass. That specificity lets an agent distinguish it from tell_add/tell_show/tell_status by nature, 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 statement or named alternative, but 'The write ops refuse while it has problems' implies the pre-write gating workflow. Usage is inferable rather than stated, which lands at minimum-viable.

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