validate_candidate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions 'normalize' and 'immutable' but does not explain what normalization entails, whether the input is mutated, what validation rules apply, or what the return value looks like. The output schema exists but the description gives no hint of its content.

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 a single 8-word sentence, front-loaded with the verb and directly stating the tool's function. There is zero wasted text, and it conveys the essential purpose efficiently.

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 one nested object parameter and an output schema, the description is too sparse. It omits usage context, validation criteria, normalization behavior, and return value information, leaving the agent to rely on guesswork. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for the missing behavioral and contextual 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?

The input schema only defines a 'candidate' object with no description, so the phrase 'route-candidate manifest' in the description adds semantic meaning by identifying the domain object. However, it does not elaborate on required or expected fields, internal structure, or the effect of normalization, leaving gaps beyond this basic identification.

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 the action (validate and normalize) and the resource (an immutable route-candidate manifest). This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like apply_candidate or compare_candidates, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, typical workflows (e.g., before apply_candidate), or any disambiguation from siblings, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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