Validate Source Coverage

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the description carries a lower burden. It adds context about what is being validated (v0.1 source coverage, key policy, and bundled data boundaries), but it doesn't disclose what the tool returns or how validation results are presented. This is acceptable but not rich beyond the annotations.

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 a single sentence, extremely concise, and front-loads the action ('Validate'). Every word earns its place; there is no repetition or filler.

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 simplicity (0 params, no output schema), the description provides a basic understanding of what the tool validates. However, it doesn't explain what the user receives (e.g., a report, boolean, errors) or any prerequisites. This leaves some ambiguity about the tool's outcome, making it merely 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema fully covers parameter semantics (100% coverage). The description adds no parameter-specific details, but none are needed. Baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description doesn't detract from that.

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 a specific verb ('Validate') and resource ('source coverage, key policy, and bundled data boundaries'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings that list, search, or compare by focusing on a validation action. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with any sibling, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the related list/explore tools. The description implies usage for validation checks but doesn't state appropriate scenarios or exclusions. With multiple sibling tools, this lack of usage context makes it harder for an agent to select this tool confidently.

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