Validate VIPMP request body

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

Beyond the readOnly and idempotent annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavior: it checks types, required-ness, constraints, unknown fields, and deprecated fields, and explicitly states that nested objects are not recursively validated. This gives the agent a clear model of what the tool will and will not do.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement, scope note, argument definitions, and an example. It is detailed without being bloated, and every section adds operational value.

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 two required parameters, the output schema, and the safety annotations, the description includes everything needed to invoke the tool correctly: purpose, input format, scope limitations, and an example. It even routes the agent to the right sibling for nested validation.

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 0%, so the description fully carries the parameter documentation burden. It defines endpoint as 'METHOD /path' with a concrete example, and body_json as the request body as a JSON string, also shown in the example. This is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Cross-check a JSON request body against the documented VIPMP schema.' It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like get_vipmp_schema and generate_vipmp_request by describing validation behavior and explicitly noting its top-level field scope.

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 description gives concrete guidance on when to use the tool and what it does not cover: 'Scope: top-level fields only' and nested objects should be checked via get_vipmp_schema. It also specifies how to format the endpoint argument with 'METHOD /path' and provides an example call.

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