Validate Research Result

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavior disclosure, yet it only reveals that the operation is deterministic and gate-like. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, what happens when a result fails the gate, or what side effects or return behavior to expect.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It delivers the core action and resource in the fewest possible words.

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?

At 0% parameter documentation and no annotations, a one-sentence description is insufficient for a tool with two opaque nested objects and a large sibling set. The description needs to clarify the role of 'request,' the nature of the gate result, and when this tool applies.

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%, and the prose only weakly hints at the 'research' parameter via 'one research artifact.' The 'request' parameter is entirely unexplained, and the nested object structures have no semantic guidance.

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 names a concrete operation ('run a deterministic scope/policy gate') and a specific resource ('one research artifact'), making the core function understandable. It is somewhat generic relative to sibling validate tools, but the artifact-and-gate framing distinguishes it enough.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus validate_prompt, validate_evidence_review, or other validation siblings. The description states what the tool does but not under what conditions an agent should choose it.

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