validate_psa_credential

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations, highlighting that credentials are sent in the request body and that the endpoint works only with TigerPaw 3.0. Annotations indicate readOnlyHint: false and destructiveHint: false, and the description's warnings align with this. No contradiction.

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?

Three sentences with no waste: first states purpose, second warns about security, third gives critical limitation. Information is front-loaded and easy 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (3 params, no output schema), the description covers purpose, security, and a known limitation. Missing details about the response format, but for credential validation, a binary success/failure is implied. Overall adequate.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented structurally. The description adds minor context about credentials being transmitted but does not elaborate on meaning or usage beyond what the schema provides. 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 action 'validate' and the resource 'Standard PSA credentials', and specifies the scope 'for a given PSA type'. It distinguishes the tool from siblings as there are no other validation tools in the list. However, it could be more precise about what validation entails (e.g., returns success/failure).

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 warns about transmitting credentials over untrusted transports and explicitly states the limitation to TigerPaw 3.0 only, indicating when not to use the tool. It does not mention alternatives, but the warning is clear and actionable.

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