validate_form_completeness

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It thoroughly defines what counts as 'unfilled' and explains the default behavior when `required` is omitted. The word 'Report' implies a read-only operation, though it does not explicitly state that no document modification occurs.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The core action and scope are front-loaded, followed by specific detection criteria and the `required` parameter's default behavior. Every sentence adds value.

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 presence of an output schema and only two parameters, this description is complete. It defines unfilled fields precisely, explains the optional parameter's semantics, and clearly states the default behavior. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain the `required` parameter in detail: it lists field names for stricter checking, and its absence means every field is checked. `file_path` is not described but is self-evident from the tool's purpose and the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Report unfilled form fields' with concrete detection criteria (empty text, placeholder text, unchecked checkboxes, missing fields). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_form_fields, which would list all fields, and fill_form_fields, which would modify them.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: whenever completeness of a form needs to be reported. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state exclusions, but the operation is well-scoped and easily differentiated from validation tools like validate_document or prepare_for_submission.

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