validate_paraids

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It only states 'Check' without disclosing whether it mutates data, what happens on failure (e.g., returns boolean, list, or errors), or any side effects. This is insufficient for an agent to anticipate behavior.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It could benefit from slightly more detail without harming conciseness, but it is already 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?

As a validation tool with an output schema, the description fails to explain what the output represents (e.g., a boolean, list of duplicates). It also omits details about when this validation is needed relative to other operations. The presence of sibling tools further highlights the need for better context.

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 description coverage is 0%, yet the description gives no information about the single parameter 'document_handle'. The agent cannot determine its purpose, expected format, or whether it is required, leaving significant ambiguity.

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 action ('Check') and the resource ('paraId uniqueness across all document parts'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'validate_endnotes' and 'validate_footnotes' which check different aspects.

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 other validation tools. There are no usage contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions mentioned.

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