validate-data-contract

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

No annotations provided; description states 'Read-only' (safe), reports per-rule findings and quality results. However, it omits details on authentication, error handling, or response format. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 concise sentences: first states purpose and output, second adds detail on report contents. No redundant information, perfectly front-loaded.

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 no output schema or annotations, description explains validation behavior and report elements well. It references the companion tool for context. Lacks explanation of output structure or error cases.

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 covers both parameters completely. Description adds context for includeQualityResults by specifying it fetches latest test case results, adding meaning beyond the schema boolean default.

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 explicitly states 'Read-only validation of an OM 1.12+ Data Contract against the actual entity state', specifying verb (validate), resource (Data Contract), and scope. It distinguishes from siblings like list-data-contracts and data-contract-bootstrap by mentioning 'bootstrap infers, this validates'.

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 provides clear context: it is a companion to data-contract-bootstrap, implying use after bootstrap. It notes it is read-only, but lacks explicit when-to-not-use or alternative tools for modification.

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