Validate Shiftyasan solver input

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is 'Free of charge (does not run the solver),' implying no side effects, and describes the return format: '{valid: true, ...summary} or an RFC 7807 problem detail.' This provides solid transparency, though it doesn't elaborate on potential errors or rate limits.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then usage guidance, and then return format. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 parameter, no output schema), the description covers everything needed: purpose, usage, behavior, and return value. It points to the external schema for the full payload structure, making it complete for the target use case.

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 already provides 100% coverage of the single parameter (`request`) with a detailed description pointing to the OpenAPI schema. The tool description adds no extra parameter-level meaning, so baseline 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Validate a shift solver request payload against the Shiftyasan public API schema.' It uses a specific verb ('validate') and resource ('shift solver request'), and distinguishes itself from siblings by noting 'does not run the solver' and pointing to usage before `solve_shift`.

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 explicitly says when to use it: 'Use this before `solve_shift` to confirm the request shape is correct, especially when constructing the payload programmatically.' This names the alternative tool and provides clear contextual guidance.

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