Review ordered school effects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and a closed world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by enumerating what does NOT happen (no native request, no credential loading, no ownership check, no provider preview), warning the agent that local validation will not catch permission or ownership problems. That is meaningful behavioral context not present in the structured fields.

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?

Two short sentences with the action front-loaded in the first clause and the exclusions compressed into the second. Nothing is wasted, though the compressed phrasing sacrifices readability for density.

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?

For a validation tool with no output schema, the agent would benefit from knowing what the validation returns (which requests failed, error shape) and whether ordering violations are reported. The description covers side effects adequately but leaves the response contract unspecified, leaving a clear gap.

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 100%, so the 'tasks' array shape and the 'account' label are already documented, including the 1-20 item bound and the note that account is not an authorization proof. The description's mention of 'exact request' and 'order/profile label/schema' only loosely echoes those fields and adds no syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 applies.

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 verb (Validate) over the batch of requests, and the negative clause implies it is a local dry-run rather than an execution. However, the phrasing 'hash order/profile label/schema' and 'school effects' is opaque jargon, and the tool never explicitly says it is the pre-flight check for submit_school_batch. An agent can guess the intent but not cleanly separate it from its sibling by reading the description alone.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of submit_school_batch, the obvious alternative that actually performs the effects. The agent must infer from the words 'No native request... or provider preview' that this is the safe step preceding submission, which is left entirely to inference.

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