validate_browseract_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the tool does not fetch data and does not certify truth, and that errors stay explicit, but it does not describe the validation criteria, return behavior, or what happens when completeness checks fail.

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 two compact sentences with no wasted wording. The primary purpose is front-loaded, followed immediately by the key behavioral caveats.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must do more work than usual. It establishes the tool's non-fetching and non-certifying nature, but it leaves unclear what 'completeness' means operationally and what the agent should expect back from 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 should compensate for the nested report fields. It partially does by mentioning 'up to 20 product results' and 'supplied samples,' which loosely maps to rows and sample_rows, but it does not explain expected_urls, origin, or engine semantics beyond what the schema patterns provide.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Check completeness of up to 20 product results and supplied samples.' That is clear enough for an agent to understand the tool validates a report payload, but it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like validate_browseract_csv or assess_browseract_fit.

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 by framing the tool as a completeness checker for supplied product results and samples, and it explicitly excludes fetching and truth certification. However, it does not say when to choose this tool over validate_browseract_csv or how it relates to the other referral/browseract siblings.

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