Review exact ordered testimonial tasks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: local-only validation, SHA-256 hashing, and explicitly absent behaviors including provider reads, key load, identity check, price, and rollback guarantee.

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 very compact and front-loads the core purpose ('Local validation and SHA-256'). The second sentence efficiently lists excluded behaviors, though the dense phrase 'exact ordered text/video import/email work, selected profile label and reviewed schema' takes some effort to parse.

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 preview-style batch validation tool with a nested ordered task schema and no output schema, the description covers side-effect boundaries well. It does not explain what the preview returns, what validation failures look like, or how the SHA-256 result should be interpreted, leaving an agent to infer the output from the tool name and schema alone.

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 baseline is 3. The description loosely references 'exact ordered text/video import/email work' and 'selected profile label', but it does not add substantive semantics beyond the schema's own descriptions of tasks and account.

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 operation: local validation and SHA-256 of an exact ordered batch of testimonial import/email tasks for a selected profile and reviewed schema. It distinguishes itself from submission-style siblings by stating it performs no provider reads, key load, or identity checks, though it never uses the plain term 'preview' or 'dry run'.

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?

Usage is implied: this is a local validation step to run before actual provider-facing submission. The description provides negative guidance ('no provider reads, key load, identity check, price or rollback guarantee') but does not explicitly name the alternative sibling tool submit_testimonial_batch or state when to choose this preview over executing the batch.

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