Preview a native request

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds real behavioral detail beyond them: no keys/client IDs loaded, no Brandfetch contact, no file reservation, and explicitly disclaiming provider validation or pricing. This is valuable disambiguation for a 'preview' tool that could be mistaken for a real request.

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 first sentence is front-loaded and dense with useful disclaimers, but it is a run-on list. The second sentence ('Search c is added from private profile at execution') is ambiguous and near-garbled, costing clarity for unclear benefit.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should ideally explain what a 'validation' returns (pass/fail, error details), which it omits. For a tool with a nested arguments object and an 11-value enum, the negative-space clarifications are helpful but the success/return semantics and the meaning of the final sentence remain unclear.

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?

With only 50% schema coverage across two required parameters, the description carries meaningful burden but adds nothing about either parameter. The 'operation' enum is self-describing and 'arguments' is documented in the schema (pointing to get_operation_schema), so the description neither compensates for the coverage gap nor clarifies the expected request shape.

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?

States a specific verb (validate/preview) and resource (one exact native operation request) with explicit scope ('locally'). It distinguishes itself from actual execution by listing what it does not do, though it does not name sibling tools like get_operation_schema in the description itself.

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?

Implies usage as a pre-flight validation step before executing a native operation, and the schema's 'Inspect get_operation_schema first' hints at ordering. However, the description never explicitly states when to choose this over siblings or the conditions/recommended workflow, and the cryptic 'Search c is added from private profile at execution' adds no actionable guidance.

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