Document Integrity Validator

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

Beyond the readOnly and destructive hints, the description discloses meaningful behavioral details: return verdicts (PASS/FLAG/FAIL/UNKNOWN_DOCUMENT_TYPE), the meaning of FAIL (possible tampering), and consequences of acting on it (unrecoverable compliance and financial exposure). No contradiction with 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 well-structured and front-loaded, starting with purpose, then usage, then return values, then alternatives. Every sentence adds value; no fluff 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?

The description covers purpose, when to use, what it returns, potential risks, and the sibling tool alternative. Given the rich schema and annotations, nothing critical is missing. Output schema exists, so return value details are not required in the description.

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 fully documents all four parameters. The description does not add additional parameter-level semantics beyond what is already in the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool validates a document for internal consistency and completeness against applicable international standards, which is a specific verb+resource. It clearly distinguishes from the sibling tool check_document_package by noting when to use each, so purpose is unambiguous.

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 states when to call (BEFORE approving payment, releasing funds, or accepting a document submission, at the moment a document arrives from an external party) and when to use the alternative (check_document_package for 2-20 related documents). This is excellent guidance with clear exclusion criteria.

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

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses the exact return format ('Returns PASS/FLAG/FAIL verdict per document with mismatch details'), the fields cross-checked (numeric values, party names, reference numbers, dates, commodity descriptions), and the fraud consequence ('A single inconsistency... may indicate fraud -- funds released on a mismatched package have no recovery path'). No contradiction with 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the verb and resource. However, there is slight redundancy among the usage phrases ('Call this BEFORE approving...' and 'Use this when your agent has received...' and 'at the moment a set... arrives'), which could be tightened. Still, every sentence contributes meaningful 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?

Given the tool's complexity, the description is complete: it covers scope (2-20 documents), trigger conditions, return values, cross-check fields, fraud context, and explicitly excludes single-document use. An output schema exists, so return-value details need not be fully repeated, but the description already summarizes them. The description is fully self-contained for correct 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-level details beyond what the schema already provides for the 'documents' array and its properties. The schema descriptions already cover label, document_text, document_image, document_type_hint, and issuing_jurisdiction.

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 opens with 'Validates a package of 2-20 related trade finance documents for cross-document consistency,' using a specific verb and resource. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool check_document by stating 'Do not use as a substitute for check_document when only one document requires verification.'

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call this BEFORE approving any multi-document trade finance transaction or cross-border shipment -- at the moment a set of 2-20 related documents arrives from an external party and funds have not been released.' It also names the alternative (check_document) and states when not to use this tool, satisfying the when/when-not/alternatives requirement.

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