Check a VisiMark document

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

Annotations already establish the safe read-only profile, but the description adds two traits they do not cover: that a report of discrepancies is the expected success outcome, and that a content-supplied document silently cannot verify imports or generated artifacts, surfaced via 'skipped'. That is meaningful operational context beyond the annotations.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action before the caveats, and each sentence carries distinct information (what it does, how to read findings, input-mode limitation). No filler, though the final clause packing 'skipped' and the import caveat is slightly dense.

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?

With no output schema, the description must sketch the return shape, and it does so at a workable level: findings plus a 'skipped' list. It does not detail the structure of individual findings or the exact return format, but for a two-param, zero-required read tool this is close to sufficient.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds value the schema does not: the mutual exclusivity of path and content ('Give this or path, never both') and the functional consequence of choosing content (no directory, so imports/artifacts are unverifiable). That is actual semantic enrichment of the parameter choice.

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 (verify) and a precise resource (computed numbers in a Markdown document vs. their producing formula), plus what the result reports. It is clearly a validation pass, which is inferable as distinct from siblings like visimark_eval or visimark_infer, but it never names or contrasts an alternative tool.

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?

It gives real usage context: 'Findings are a successful result, not an error' steers the agent away from treating a non-empty result as failure, and it explains that content-based documents cannot verify imports. However, there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-alternative guidance against visimark_eval or visimark_ref, leaving sibling selection to inference.

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