acc_validate_names

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

With readOnlyHint=true already indicating a safe read operation, the description adds value by explaining the optional -Status-Revision suffix and field-by-field decoding behavior. It does not contradict the annotation and gives insight into how validation is performed.

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 deliver purpose, specifics, and usage context with zero waste. The core action is front-loaded, making it immediately scannable.

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?

The presence of an output schema covers return values, and the description covers purpose, usage, and parameter format specifics. The tool's complexity is moderate, and the description leaves no significant gaps beyond what already exists in structured fields.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful detail for the 'names' parameter (suffix format, example) beyond the schema, while 'config_id' is adequately covered by the schema itself. This compensates and elevates the score.

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 states the verb 'Validate' and the resource 'file / information-container names' against the project's ISO 19650 naming convention. It distinguishes itself from siblings like acc_compose_name and acc_audit_folder_naming by focusing on validation with decoding, errors, and suggestions.

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?

Provides explicit usage context: 'Use before uploading or when checking a delivery list.' While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, it clearly indicates when to use the tool. This meets the criteria for clear context even without explicit exclusions.

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