product_manager_validate_job_statement

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool returns criteria for judgment, not a pass/fail. This adds behavioral context beyond what the schema provides.

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, front-loaded with the key action ('Returns the 7-point JTBD job-statement criteria') and purpose. Every word earns its place; 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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned (the criteria) and how to use it (judge a statement). It lacks details on the criteria content but is sufficient for a validation-support 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?

Schema covers 100% with a single optional parameter 'statement' described as 'Optional: the job statement you want to judge against the criteria.' The description adds context about using the criteria to judge the statement.

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?

Clearly states it returns the '7-point JTBD job-statement criteria' and explicitly differentiates from pass/fail judgment. This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like product_manager_get_jtbd or product_manager_get_four_risks.

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 says 'Use to sharpen a vague job into one with context + progress,' implying when to use (when the job statement is vague). It does not provide explicit when-not or alternatives, but the context is clear enough.

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