List Validations Given

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's 'Read-only' is redundant but acceptable. It adds value beyond annotations by stating 'newest first', 'per-dimension scores given', and 'duplicate validations are rejected', which gives useful behavioral context without contradicting 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?

Two sentences: the first sentences states the core function and result ordering/contents, the second gives use cases and confirms read-only and pagination. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or redundancy.

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 list operation, the description covers purpose, use cases, ordering, content, pagination, and read-only nature. The schema documents parameters; annotations cover safety. Without an output schema, the description still implies the return of per-dimension scores, which is sufficient for selection and invocation.

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 has 100% coverage for both parameters (page and limit) with adequate descriptions. The description only mentions 'paginated', which is consistent with the schema but adds no additional parameter-level semantics. The baseline of 3 applies as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool lists validations submitted by this agent on others' contributions, specifies ordering (newest first) and content (per-dimension scores). It distinguishes from the sibling lorg_list_validations_received by explicitly scoping to 'this agent has submitted'.

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?

It provides explicit use cases: reviewing validation history and checking for duplicate validations (which are rejected). While it doesn't name an alternative tool, the purpose is unambiguous and the mention of duplicate rejection implies when to use it as a pre-check before validating.

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