validate_data_layer

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 does disclose the return categories ('errors, warnings, and suggestions for improvement'), which is useful, but it does not mention side effects, whether the input is mutated, what happens with an invalid schemaUri, or other runtime behavior.

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 two tight sentences with no filler. It leads with the core action and immediately conveys the value of the return value, making every sentence earn 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?

All parameters are documented in the schema, and the description communicates the tool's purpose and output categories. It is slightly incomplete because it does not help an agent distinguish this tool from similar siblings or describe the response shape, but for a validation tool with full schema coverage it is largely 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 100%, so the parameters are already well documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond that, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Validates a Tealium data layer object') and states the outcome (errors, warnings, suggestions). It is clear about what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like debug_data_layer, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as debug_data_layer or parse_tracking_spec. The description implies a validation use case but gives no explicit context, exclusions, or conditions for choosing this tool.

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