Validate integration plan

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool 'flags unsupported claims' (a read-only action), but it does not state whether it modifies data, requires authentication, or describes the exact output format. The examples give some insight but not comprehensive behavioral context.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action ('Checks a proposed plan') and then adds illustrative examples. It is concise with no wasted words, effectively balancing detail and brevity.

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?

Without an output schema, the description should hint at return values. It implies the tool returns a list of flagged issues ('flags unsupported claims'), but it does not specify the response structure, whether it returns a report or throws an error, or any prerequisites. For a validation tool, this is adequate but leaves some ambiguity.

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 only 50% (operationIds lacks a schema description). The description compensates by explaining both parameters: 'free-text claims' for claims and 'operationIds' for the array of identifiers. It adds semantic meaning beyond the schema, though it could be more explicit about operationIds format or constraints.

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 purpose: to check a proposed plan against known gaps and platform invariants, with explicit examples of unsupported claims. It uses a specific verb ('checks/flags') and identifies the resource (proposed plan), and the context of validating a plan distinguishes it from sibling tools like plan_integration or search_knowledge.

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 implies usage (when you have a plan to validate) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. It lacks phrases like 'use after plan_integration' or 'instead of search_knowledge', so guidance is only implicit.

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