check_query_scope

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states the intent, not what the tool returns (e.g., boolean), whether it is read-only, or what 'valid' means in context. This is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 wasted words. It is concise, though the brevity contributes to under-specification in other dimensions.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a 0% parameter description coverage, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what 'valid' means, what the output looks like, or how this tool fits into the workflow with the sibling tools, making the overall context incomplete.

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 description does not add meaning beyond the parameter names. It mentions 'publication URL' and 'question' but does not define expected formats, constraints, or examples, leaving the agent to guess at valid inputs.

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 uses a specific verb 'Determine' with a clear resource: 'whether a question is valid for the supplied publication URL.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_publication or get_publication_text, which retrieve or search content rather than validate scope.

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 a validation or pre-check purpose ('whether a question is valid'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of siblings or when not to use it. No alternatives are named, leaving room for interpretation.

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