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

The annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description is consistent: validation is non-mutating. The description adds rich behavioral detail: no-overload behavior returns valid usages, it reports whether cheats are required, and it resolves execute chains including nested execute. This significantly exceeds annotation coverage.

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?

Three dense sentences carry substantial information without redundancy. The most decision-relevant details are front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place by adding either scope, failure behavior, or practical invocation guidance.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description tells the agent what results to expect on failure (valid usages), what additional information is provided (cheats requirement), and how complex execute chains are handled. This is sufficient for correct invocation and interpretation for a validation tool with read-only annotations.

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%, so the schema already documents line and version, including the optional leading slash and version format/constraints. The description adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond noting validation of the command line, so the baseline score of 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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'validates a single Bedrock command line against the official command index.' It enumerates what is checked (existence, argument count, selectors, block states) and clearly differentiates itself from sibling tools like validate_json, validate_python, and validate_script.

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 'Run every command through this before giving it to the user' is an explicit when-to-use directive. However, it does not mention alternatives or conditions for when to prefer a sibling tool, so it stops short of the fullest guidance.

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