Validate References

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

The description goes beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by detailing the return format ([ERROR]/[MISSING], summary line), explaining the effect of verbose and ignore_optional, and noting token savings. This provides substantial behavioral context.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the core function first, then the output format, then practical parameter advice. Every sentence adds value.

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 tool's moderate complexity, the description covers the main purpose, output format, and parameter behavior. No output schema exists, but the description's mention of return format fills that gap. Combined with the readOnly annotation, the description is sufficient for correct usage.

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 only describes path and depth, leaving verbose and ignore_optional undocumented. The description adds meaningful explanations for these parameters and offers depth usage guidance, compensating for the 50% schema coverage.

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 ObjectReference fields under a path recursively. It uses a specific verb and resource, and differentiates from siblings by focusing on ObjectReference validation and providing output format.

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 parameter-specific usage guidance (depth recommendations, verbose usage, ignore_optional behavior). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full guidance.

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