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

The description discloses that validation runs via Rust→WASM at the edge, and that it returns diagnostic information (errors/warnings). However, without annotations, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, idempotent, or has side effects, which is moderately informative for a validation tool.

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?

A single concise sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose and key output. Every part contributes value with no wasted words.

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 simple validation tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it states the action, input, and return type. Minor omissions like error handling or size limits exist but are not critical given the tool's straightforward nature.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters and already describes 'content' as 'Raw .faf file content (YAML)'. The description adds no further meaning, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 the verb 'Validate' and the resource '.faf file', and specifies the output: completeness score plus errors/warnings. This distinguishes it from sibling tools 'faf_read' and 'faf_score' by the action performed, though it does not explicitly contrast them.

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 provided on when to use this tool over alternatives. The description only implies validation, but does not state preconditions, exclusions, or mention alternative tools for scoring or reading.

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