validate_doc

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, yet the description adds substantial behavior: no writes occur, the previous revision is pulled from the archive so the carry-forward check runs, and the check scope is bounded to FORM and CONTINUITY. It additionally discloses what the tool cannot do (verify truth or honest scope of a 'none'), which is exactly the kind of limit an agent needs.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and the no-write guarantee, then use cases, then parameter behavior, then scope limits. Dense and mostly waste-free, though the middle sentence packs three use cases and the boundary paragraph is long relative to the rest.

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 3-optional-param, no-output-schema tool, the description is nearly sufficient: it explains inputs, the archive comparison, and the check's boundaries. It does not describe the shape of the result (e.g., that a report/count of findings is returned), leaving the response format to inference.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: doc_id pulls the prior revision from the archive for carry-forward comparison, content requires template_id or a covered doc_id, and template_id is read from the shipped copy rather than the store copy. These interaction rules go beyond the field-level schema text.

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?

Specific verb ('Check') plus resource ('controlled document against the template that governs it') and an explicit scoping qualifier ('WITHOUT writing anything'). It distinguishes itself from the write path it mirrors and from doc-mutating siblings, so an agent can identify it without opening a schema.

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?

Enumerates three concrete use cases (auditing pre-validation records, counting adoption impact, pre-write checks of unstored content) and notes it is the freestanding counterpart of the write-path check, which implicitly routes agents away from write_doc/patch_doc. It lacks an explicit 'do not use this for X' exclusion or a named alternative tool.

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