validate_footnotes

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but only states it 'cross-references' IDs, omitting details like whether it modifies the document, requires the document to be open, or what happens on mismatch.

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 just one sentence, which is efficient but lacks critical detail. While front-loaded, it is too brief to be considered well-structured for agent use.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description does not indicate what the tool returns (e.g., list of mismatches), and the single parameter is unexplained, making the description insufficient for complete understanding.

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 input schema has zero description coverage, and the tool description provides no explanation for the document_handle parameter, leaving its purpose and acceptable values entirely unclear.

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 explicitly states the action ('cross-reference footnote IDs') and the specific resources ('document.xml' and 'footnotes.xml'), making the purpose clear and distinct 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus other validation tools (e.g., validate_endnotes), nor are there any prerequisites or conditions for use stated.

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