validate_footnotes

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'cross-reference' but does not explain what happens on mismatch (e.g., errors, warnings, or modifications), any side effects, or whether it is read-only. The output schema exists but the description adds no context about the return value.

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, concise sentence that directly states the tool's function with no extraneous words. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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?

The tool has an output schema, but the description fails to explain what the validation result looks like (e.g., list of mismatches, pass/fail). Given the validation context and no automated output description, the description is incomplete for an agent to understand the tool's full behavior.

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 coverage is 0%, meaning no parameter descriptions in the schema. The description does not mention the parameter document_handle or its purpose, leaving the agent to infer its meaning from the name alone, which is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 'Cross-reference footnote IDs between document.xml and footnotes.xml' specifies the action (cross-reference) and the resources (footnote IDs in two XML files), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like validate_endnotes or validate_paraids which target different elements.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to validate footnotes vs. endnotes or other validations. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., document must be open) or conditions that make validation appropriate.

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