validate_query

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly explains the internal mechanism (creating a 1-second search job and immediately canceling it) and the return contract (valid=true or specific error message). This goes beyond a bare mutating/reading hint and gives the agent a realistic model of the tool's side effects.

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 compact and front-loaded. The first sentence states the purpose; the second and third explain key behaviors and output format. No filler words or redundant information. Every sentence earns its place.

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's simplicity (one required parameter), full schema coverage, an output schema that exists, and the description's clear explanation of input, mechanism, and return value, the tool is fully understood. No important context is missing.

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?

The schema already fully describes the single 'query' parameter with 100% coverage. The description does not add any additional parameter-level detail beyond rephrasing that a 'Sumo Logic query' is validated. This meets the baseline for good schema documentation but adds no extra semantic value.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Check if a Sumo Logic query is syntactically valid.' This unambiguously states the tool's core function and distinguishes it from any sibling tool, as there is no other validation tool in the list.

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 clearly implies the tool is for pre-flight validation of queries before running them. It gives clear context by explaining the minimal-job mechanism, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions. Still, the intended use case is unmistakable.

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