validate-data-contract

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

Discloses read-only nature and describes output details (per-rule findings, test case results) without annotation support. No contradictions. Adequately communicates behavioral traits beyond what schema provides, though could mention if contract must exist or error handling.

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 action and output, second provides context. No redundant information. Every word earns its place.

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 schema covers parameters and output schema is absent, description adequately explains return structure (per-rule findings, test case results). Could mention prerequisites (e.g., contract exists) but overall sufficient for a focused validation tool.

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%, with both parameters already described succinctly. Description does not add new parameter information beyond what schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate. No need for extra param details here.

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?

Description clearly states 'Read-only validation of an OM 1.12+ Data Contract against the actual entity state' and lists specific outputs (per-rule schema findings, test case results). Distinguishes from sibling tools like 'run-data-contract-validation' and 'get-data-contract-by-name' by emphasizing read-only and validation nature.

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 notes read-only behavior and positions as companion to data-contract-bootstrap Prompt ('bootstrap infers, this validates'). Provides clear context for when to use (post-bootstrap validation) without explicitly stating exclusions, which is acceptable given the tool's specificity.

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