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

Annotations already declare this read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool returns canonical forms, book, structure, and previous/next sections, which is useful output context, but it doesn't disclose behavior on invalid input (e.g., failure modes, acceptable formats, or whether it throws errors). No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 29-word sentence with the verb pair front-loaded and the output components listed after a colon. Every phrase contributes either the action or the return content; there is no filler or repetition of the title.

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 one required parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description delivers the core contract and enumerates return fields. However, 'its structure' and 'previous/next sections' are undefined, and there's no treatment of error conditions or example references, leaving some ambiguity for an agent calling the tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry the meaning of 'ref.' It does so by calling it 'a text reference' and describing what normalization yields, but it stops short of providing accepted formats, syntax examples, or edge-case behavior. For a single-parameter tool, this is a basic adequate semantic but not a rich one.

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 'Validate and normalize' – a specific verb-resource pairing targeting text references. It then enumerates distinct outputs (canonical English/Hebrew forms, book, structure, previous/next sections), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_references_in_text (which extracts refs from free text) and resolve_name (which resolves names).

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 implies usage – you have a reference string and need validation/normalization – but it never explicitly states when to choose this over siblings, nor does it name alternatives or exclusions. No comparison to find_references_in_text or resolve_name is provided, so the agent must infer the right context from the verb and output list alone.

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