validate_reference

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool uses public metadata registries and performs independent validation, but it does not disclose output shape, failure modes, network dependency, or how 'validation' is determined. This is a significant gap for a tool that performs external lookups.

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 filler. Every word adds meaning: 'independently' signals standalone operation, 'validate' states the action, 'DOI' gives the target, and 'public metadata registries' gives the source. It is as concise as possible.

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 has a nested request with seven propertiesament and no output schema or annotations, yet the description provides only a one-line summary. It does not explain what the validation result contains, how expected metadata is used, or when to prefer this tool over combined discovery+validation siblings. The surrounding context is too rich for this description to be considered 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It clarifies that the input should be a DOI, but says nothing about expected_year, expected_title, expected_authors, prefer_zotero, include_abstract, or include_raw_source_summaries. These expected-value parameters are central to how validation works and are left completely unexplained.

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 names a specific verb ('validate'), a resource ('a DOI'), and a method ('using public metadata registries'), making the primary action clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like discover_references or discover_and_validate_references, though 'independently' hints at standalone validation.

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 does not state when to use this tool versus siblings such as discover_references or discover_and_validate_references. No exclusions, preconditions, or alternative routing is given, leaving the agent to infer the intended context from the name alone.

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