validate_deposition

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses two meaningful traits: the validation is 'deterministic' and it 'never publishes anything.' These provide clear side-effect expectations, though it does not explicitly state whether the tool is fully read-only or what the response looks like.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded and the crucial safety qualifier ('Never publishes anything') is clearly separated. 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?

For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented parameter, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how to construct the metadata argument or what kind of result is returned (boolean, error list, etc.). The description covers intent and side effects but leaves the agent guessing about invocation and response.

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 schema has 0% description coverage and the single required parameter is just named 'metadata' with no type or structure. The description adds context that it is 'research deposition metadata' and 'repository-independent,' but it does not specify the expected structure, required fields, or format. This does not sufficiently compensate for the schema gap.

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 uses a specific verb ('validate') and a well-defined resource ('repository-independent research deposition metadata'), and the phrase 'Never publishes anything' distinguishes it from sibling tools like publish_draft and create_draft. An agent can clearly tell what this tool does and what it is not.

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 safe pre-publication usage by stating 'Never publishes anything,' but it does not explicitly say when to call this tool (e.g., before publish_draft) or how it relates to alternatives like publication_review. No positive usage instruction is given, only a negative exclusion.

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