Citations_validate_query

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only. The description adds useful behavioral context: it performs a dry-run validation rather than executing a search, and it returns optimization suggestions. This aligns with readOnlyHint and clarifies the side-effect-free nature.

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 front-loaded with the core action and then uses examples to make Lucene syntax concrete. It is slightly long, but the example list earns its place for a validation tool where syntax is the main concern.

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 read-only annotation, output schema, and sibling context, most of what an agent needs to invoke the tool is present. The main gap is the undocumented 'field_set' parameter, which the description neither defines nor illustrates.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must explain the parameters. It thoroughly explains the 'query' parameter with Solr/Lucene syntax examples, but it never mentions the 'field_set' parameter or its allowed values/meaning, leaving a real 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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Validate Lucene query syntax and provide optimization suggestions.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling search/guidance tools and includes concrete examples of what the tool accepts.

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 explicitly lists likely user intents ('Check my query, syntax error, is this query valid, ... dry run before searching, why did my search fail') and tells the agent to use Citations_get_guidance for a comprehensive syntax guide. It does not explicitly say when not to use it in favor of a search tool, but the validation context is clear.

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