Validate Completion Evidence

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. Description adds workflow context: pre-validation, strict policy requirement, and that Harbor is authoritative at submit time. No contradictions with 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?

Three sentences, no waste. First sentence defines purpose, second adds condition, third clarifies authority. Efficient and front-loaded.

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 6 parameters and output schema, description explains the tool's role clearly. Does not detail parameters or output, but output schema exists. Could mention parameter purpose briefly, but overall sufficient.

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%. Description does not explain any parameter meaning or usage. Parameter names like preset_id and payloads are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description fails to add value beyond schema.

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 evidence against JSON schemas and forbidden fields, distinguishing it from sibling submit tools. The verb 'pre-validates' and resource 'completion evidence' are specific.

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?

States it is required before evidence submit tools when PAYBOND_MCP_EVIDENCE_POLICY=strict, giving clear usage context. Notes that Harbor is authoritative at submit time, implying preliminary nature, but no explicit exclusions or alternatives.

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