Validate Completion Evidence

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds context that this tool validates against schemas and forbidden fields, and that it is not authoritative at submit time, which goes beyond the annotations.

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 three sentences, each adding essential information: purpose, usage condition, and authoritative note. Front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words.

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 tool has 6 parameters (1 required) and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the parameters' roles, especially the three frozen_* fields. While output schema exists and doesn't need description, the parameter semantics are lacking. The description provides good context for usage but misses critical parameter details.

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 0% for 6 parameters. The description does not explain any of the parameters (preset_id, vendor_payload, canonical_payload, frozen_* fields) or their semantics. This is a significant gap since the description must compensate for missing schema descriptions.

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 it pre-validates vendor and canonical completion evidence against catalog JSON Schemas and preset forbidden_evidence_fields. It distinguishes from sibling submit tools by specifying it is a required pre-validation step before evidence submission when policy is strict.

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 says 'Required before evidence submit tools when PAYBOND_MCP_EVIDENCE_POLICY=strict.' It also notes that Harbor remains authoritative at submit time, providing context on when this tool's results are not final. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool.

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