discover_and_validate_references

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only gives a high-level summary ('analyze', 'discover', 'validate') and does not mention potential side effects, external network calls, performance implications, read-only nature, or error behavior. An agent has no idea what happens during execution or what constraints exist, which is insufficient for a complex operation.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the input ('supplied RAG text') and then lists the three main actions. It is efficient and has no fluff, though it sacrifices completeness for brevity.

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?

The tool is complex with 11 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The one-sentence description is grossly inadequate for an agent to understand how to configure the request, what the return value looks like, or when to use this tool. Almost all necessary context is missing.

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 0% – the schema provides only names and defaults, no descriptions. The description does not mention any parameters or how they influence behavior. For a tool with 11 parameters, this is a critical gap; the description adds no semantic meaning beyond what the schema already shows.

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 composite function: it analyzes supplied text, discovers candidates, and validates matches. The resource ('RAG text') and the actions are explicit, and the tool name confirms it deals with references. It distinguishes itself from the separate discover_references and validate_reference siblings by implying a combined end-to-end flow, though it does not name these alternatives.

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 compound description implies the tool performs both discovery and validation, so an agent can infer it is appropriate when both steps are needed. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus the standalone siblings, nor any mention of exclusions or prerequisites. The usage context is only implied, not stated.

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