validate_documents

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits beyond annotations: it returns a task_id immediately, polls for up to 50 seconds during status checks, and advises to continue if timed out. This aligns with the openWorldHint annotation indicating state mutation. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise at four sentences, with the purpose front-loaded. It effectively communicates the essential information without unnecessary detail, though it could be slightly more terse.

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 asynchronous two-phase nature of the tool and the absence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the flow: starting, getting a task_id, checking status with polling, and timeout behavior. It could mention potential errors or result format, but it is generally complete.

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?

Although the input schema covers both parameters (100% coverage), the description adds significant value by explaining the usage pattern: how to start a validation with file_paths and how to check status with task_id. This clarifies the conditional logic that the schema alone does not convey.

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's function: validating documents for inconsistencies, contradictions, and risk assessments. It differentiates between starting a new validation and checking status, using specific verbs and resource terms. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like diff_docx_files or sanitize_docx.

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 provides explicit instructions on when to use the tool for starting vs. checking a validation, including the required parameters for each case. However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternative sibling tools for similar tasks.

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