validate_deposit

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that no deposit occurs ('sans dépôt'), that PDF and metadata are transmitted, and that environment credentials are required. This covers the most critical behavioral traits, though expected outcomes and response format remain unspecified.

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, each contributing distinct information: the test action, the transmitted payload, and the credential requirement plus sequencing. No redundancy or filler.

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 description covers the core purpose, non-deposit behavior, and credential requirement, which is decent for a one-parameter tool. However, it leaves 'X-test: 1' undefined, does not explain the draft_id parameter, and gives no indication of expected result or error behavior, which is especially noticeable given the absence of an output schema.

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 has 0% description coverage for draft_id, and the description does not explain what draft_id is or how to obtain it. It refers to 'PDF et métadonnées' and the package, but does not link these to the single required parameter, leaving the parameter's meaning to be inferred entirely from its name.

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 action: testing the package with HAL using X-test: 1, explicitly without depositing ('sans dépôt'). It also distinguishes itself from submit_deposit by positioning the tool as a pre-submission step, making it easy to tell apart from siblings.

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 explicitly says 'À effectuer avant submit_deposit' (to be done before submit_deposit), which gives clear timing relative to the main sibling. It does not mention when not to use the tool or alternatives like inspect_deposit, so some routing guidance is missing.

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