validate_endnotes

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

Describes the validation logic (checks references, flags orphans) without annotations. Implicitly a read-only check, but does not explicitly state absence of side effects or permissions needed. Still clear enough for agent understanding.

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 sentences, concise and front-loaded. First sentence defines the core action, second elaborates on specifics. No wasted words.

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 a likely output schema (has_output_schema: true), the description fully explains the tool's purpose. No gaps for a validation tool.

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 parameters defined in schema, so baseline is 4. Description adds no parameter info, but none is needed. Schema coverage is trivial 100%.

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 the verb 'validate' and the resource 'endnotes', with specific detail about cross-referencing IDs. Distinguishes from sibling tools like validate_footnotes by focusing on endnotes.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., audit_document, validate_footnotes). Does not provide context about prerequisites or typical usage scenarios.

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