audit_document

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It describes checks and return report but does not explicitly state whether the audit is read-only or has side effects, or any prerequisites (e.g., document must be open).

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?

Highly concise with structured bullet-point list of checks. Every sentence adds value; front-loaded purpose and return value.

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 parameters and presence of output schema (even if not shown), description fully covers tool's function, what it checks, and what it returns (detailed report with valid/invalid status).

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?

No input parameters exist (0 params, 100% schema coverage), so description adds no parameter information. Baseline for zero parameters is 4.

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?

Clearly states it runs a comprehensive structural audit of the document, listing specific checks like footnote cross-references, paraId uniqueness, heading continuity, and more. Distinguishes from sibling validation tools (e.g., validate_endnotes, validate_footnotes) by covering multiple aspects in a single audit.

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?

Implied usage as a comprehensive audit, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus individual validation tools (e.g., validate_paraids). No when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions provided.

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