check_format

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: local-only execution, no LLM, nothing sent anywhere, exact data egress points for the index and OpenAlex/Crossref/arXiv, and the guarantee that it 'never rewrite[s] the paper'. It also discloses a real limitation ('for the others the result says so') and the output contract (every violation with page and evidence). This is unusually complete behavioral disclosure.

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 first sentence is a well-formed, front-loaded purpose statement. The privacy block, however, is long and largely concerns sibling tools – it explains what review_paper and check_citations send – which is off-target for this tool and dilutes the description rather than tightening it.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description still covers the key scoping caveat (only ICLR 2027, NeurIPS 2026 and ICML 2026 have page-limit/section rules) plus the reporting format. The gap is scope confusion: it documents data flows for two other tools inside this tool's description.

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 must compensate, and it does: it lists the venue values (including 'other') and the stage values, and explains the semantic difference of 'submission' (anonymization checks apply) versus camera_ready/preprint. pdf_path is never described, but its meaning is self-evident from the parameter name.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Check a paper PDF against a venue's format and anonymization rules') and immediately narrows scope ('locally and for free'). That is clearly distinct from review_paper, check_citations and verify_quotes among the siblings, so an agent can route without opening the schema.

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?

It gives strong operational context – 'At submission, anonymization problems ... are violations' and which venues have page-limit/section rules built – which implies when the tool is useful. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer this over review_paper or the other checker siblings, and review_paper only appears incidentally in the privacy note, so routing is left to inference.

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