validate_footnotes

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 mentions cross-referencing and flagging issues but does not specify side effects (e.g., read-only vs. modifying), output format, or error handling. The description is partially transparent but lacks key behavioral details for a validation tool.

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 extremely concise with two short sentences, no filler, and clearly communicates the tool's purpose and its two validation checks. Every word earns its place.

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 the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists (so return values are covered by schema), the description is fairly complete. It explains the validation logic, though it could briefly mention what the output contains (e.g., list of inconsistencies). Still, it suffices for a zero-param 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?

The tool has no parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description adds meaning by explaining the validation process, which is sufficient. Baseline score of 4 applies for zero-parameter tools.

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 clearly states the tool validates footnote cross-references between document.xml and footnotes.xml, checking two specific conditions: matching references and orphaned definitions. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like validate_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?

The description implies use for validation but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like validate_endnotes or other validation tools. No when-not-to-use or alternative guidance is provided.

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