validate_dossier_references

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It clarifies only the negative scope ('Not entailment'); it does not say whether the tool is read-only or mutating, whether it can fail/repair the dossier, or what kind of result (pass/fail vs. diagnostics) it produces, beyond the existence of an output schema.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with zero filler; the scope-limiting clause is placed immediately after the action. It is arguably too compressed for a nested-schema tool, but every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a tool taking a complex nested Dossier with claims, record references, and section states (and a sibling assembler producing that input), the description is too thin. The output schema covers return values, but reference-matching behavior, validation failure semantics, and parameter meaning are left unaddressed.

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 two parameters (packet_id, dossier with nested Claim/Datum structures) are entirely undocumented. The phrase 'previously assembled packet' hints that packet_id refers to prior output, but nothing explains the Dossier payload, the id/reference matching semantics, or the assertion enums.

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?

States a specific verb (Check) and resource (references and structured assertions) with a clear scoping phrase (against a previously assembled packet), and the 'Not entailment' clause narrows what kind of checking this is. It implicitly contrasts with the sibling assemble_target_disease_evidence (assembly vs. validation) but never names it.

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?

'against a previously assembled packet' implies this runs after assembly, and 'Not entailment' sets a scope boundary, so usage is implied rather than stated. No explicit when/when-not guidance or named alternative (e.g. the assembly sibling) is given, and no preconditions are stated.

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