Validate Website

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it validates HTML but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, if it makes external requests, whether it has side effects, or what constitutes 'correct usage'. This is insufficient for a validation tool.

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, concise sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the key verb and resource, and every word contributes to the purpose.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema, so the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, it lacks clarity on the exact scope of validation (which components are checked, what counts as correct usage) and potential limitations. This ambiguity may cause an agent to misuse it in contexts where a more specific tool would be appropriate.

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 defines one required parameter 'html' with no description. The description adds meaning by specifying that the html parameter is the code to be validated, clarifying its role beyond the schema. However, it does not provide details on expected formats, encoding, or constraints beyond the schema's minLength.

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 states a specific action ('Validates') applied to a clear resource ('HTML code') with a precise intent ('for correct Material Web component usage'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling documentation and health-check tools, which have different purposes.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the alternatives. It does not state when validation is appropriate, what prerequisites exist, or when to choose a documentation tool instead. The agent must infer the use case from the description alone.

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