validate_page

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and covers the return types (errors, warnings, stats) with concrete examples. It does not explicitly state whether the operation has side effects, but the verb 'validate' implies a read-only check, which is acceptable.

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 compact and front-loaded with the action, but the first sentence packs a dense list of error/warning types. Still, every clause contributes useful information.

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 single-parameter validation tool without an output schema, the description explains purpose, usage, and return categories sufficiently. It leaves out details about the 'stats' content and invalid JSON handling, but these are minor gaps.

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?

The schema already describes 'source' as a page source object or JSON string, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds the expected shape '{ sections: [...] }', enriching the meaning beyond the schema.

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 uses the specific verb 'validate' with resource 'page source' and enumerates exact error and warning categories, making the purpose unmistakable. It also distinguishes itself from build_page by referencing it, which helps disambiguate from sibling tools.

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 instruction 'Always run this before build_page' provides explicit guidance on when the tool should be used, establishing a direct workflow context. While alternatives are not mentioned, the directive is unambiguous.

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