validate_question

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely non-obvious behavioral trait: it is a human-in-the-loop gate where the agent must present the result and pause for researcher approval before proceeding, plus a pointer to the governing ruleset guide('question').

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and output, then the approval step and rules pointer. No filler, though 'Rules: guide("question").' is telegraphic enough that its intent is slightly opaque.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and the HITL step is covered. However, for a tool whose input is a deeply nested ResearchQuestion (framework, components, filters), the description offers only a guide reference and no orientation on constructing or when to reject a question, leaving meaningful gaps at this complexity level.

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?

Top-level schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the 'sources' and 'question' parameters, but it says nothing about their format, defaults, or the framework/component structure beyond a terse 'guide("question")' pointer. The only parameter-relevant help is delegated to another tool rather than explained here.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Check a drafted PICO/PCC search question') and names the downstream consumer ('return a question_id for start_search'), which distinguishes it from siblings like start_search. An agent knows exactly what this tool produces and where that artifact goes.

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 mention of returning a question_id 'for start_search' implies this runs before search, and 'Show the result to the researcher and wait for approval' adds a workflow step, but there is no explicit when-to-use clause or exclusion relative to siblings such as start_search or guide. Usage is inferred rather than stated.

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