validate_document

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only.' and describes the return object, adding concrete behavioral context beyond the tool name. It does not cover error behavior or file lock requirements, but for a read-only package-level check this is acceptable.

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?

Two tightly packed sentences. The primary purpose and scope are front-loaded, the return shape is given inline, and sibling routing comes at the end. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

A simple one-parameter read-only tool with an output schema; the description covers its purpose, scope, return values, and alternatives. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. The single parameter file_path is not explicitly described, but the phrase 'the package opens' and the overall context make it clear the argument is the document file to validate. It adds minimal detail beyond the schema, but the obviousness of a single path parameter keeps it at a viable level.

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 ('Run') and resource ('quick structural check'), then enumerates the exact checks performed: package opens, footnote/endnote consistency, and field marker balance. It also names sibling tools (diagnose_document, com_validate_opens_clean) and clarifies what this tool is not, making differentiation instant.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: it is a quick structural check, while diagnose_document is for deep multi-check health reports and com_validate_opens_clean is for Word's own verdict. This tells an agent exactly when to select this tool versus the two most similar siblings.

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