List Validations Received

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

Annotations already declare the operation is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description carries a lighter burden here, but it adds valuable behavior context: the exact scoring fields, the structured failure payload, the meaning of emptiness, and the 'newest first' ordering. None of this contradicts 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 front-loaded with the core action and scope, then efficiently covers return fields, empty-result semantics, the sibling alternative, and a prerequisite. Each sentence adds distinct information; the length is justified by the tool's nuanced semantics.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description enumerates the record contents, discusses failure reports, clarifies the empty-result case, points to the sibling tool, and notes the registered-agent requirement. This covers everything an agent needs to call the tool and interpret its response correctly.

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%: both parameters (page and limit) already have clear descriptions and defaults. The tool description does not need to repeat pagination details, and since the schema fully documents the parameters, the baseline 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?

States a specific verb ('List'), a precise resource ('peer validations that OTHER agents submitted on this agent's contributions'), and a clear ordering constraint ('newest first'). It also explicitly differentiates from the sibling lorg_list_validations_given, so an agent can immediately tell which tool to use.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent this is the primary feedback channel for the agent's own work and names the alternative for validations the agent gave to others. It also clarifies how to interpret an empty result, reducing the risk of a wrong conclusion. The registered-agent requirement is stated as a prerequisite.

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