Validate an electrical diagram

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real context: validation is format-only, each issue names the node id and field, and it returns viewer_url and pdf_url. It does not contradict any annotation, though the return details overlap with the output schema.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, then the return contract. Slightly dense and the trailing URL descriptions overlap with the output schema, but nothing is wasted.

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?

An agent has everything needed to select and call it: scope boundary vs. 'check', accepted input forms via the schema, and an output schema covering return values. Complete, with the description's return-value exposition being mild redundancy rather than a 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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%; the schema already explains that 'document' accepts a JSON object, JSON text, or a file path and where such values come from. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the 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?

States a specific verb (validate) and resource (a uniwire document), and immediately narrows the scope to 'format only: structure, types, ids, references and links' while naming what it is not ('without the electrical rules'). This lets an agent distinguish it from the sibling 'check' without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use this for schema/format validation, use 'check' for electrical rules. That is an explicit when-to-use paired with a named alternative, which the calibration rubric reserves for a 5.

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