validate_conversion

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

Annotations declare non-destructive, idempotent, but NOT read-only. The description resolves that tension well by stating 'Writes nothing unless report_path is set', which explains why readOnlyHint is false for a mostly-read operation. It also discloses behavior beyond annotations by naming the report contents (fidelity categories plus every NOT_CHECKED or UNSUPPORTED property).

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?

Front-loaded with the trigger condition and the returned checks in two dense sentences with no filler. The trailing '[docbridge schema 0.2.4]' tag is metadata rather than agent-facing guidance, a minor deduction.

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 validation tool whose return shape is covered by an output schema, the description gives enough: it defines inputs, the optional side effect, and the report's scope. Safety and idempotency come from annotations. The only real gap is the absence of routing against document_compare.

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 75%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds meaning for report_path (the conditional write) and alludes to the report scope, but says nothing about detail, overwrite, max_differences, or the encoding parameters, so it only partially compensates for the uncovered fields.

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 (validate) and resource (a conversion between a source document and a converted one), and enumerates the check categories it returns: text, numeric and identifier fidelity, structure. It does not name or differentiate itself from the sibling document_compare, which is the most likely source of confusion for an agent, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

'Given a source document and a converted one (made by anything)' sets the precondition and clarifies it works with output from any converter, which is helpful. However, it never says when to prefer this over document_compare, or when a validation is unnecessary, leaving the when-to-use decision largely implied.

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