validate_notes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and explicitly states 'Read-only' plus the meaning of ok and needs_cleanup flags. It also names the follow-up remediation tool. It could add more about failure behavior, but for a read-only validation tool this is solid.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then output interpretation, then adjacent tools. Every sentence earns its place and there is no wasted wording.

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 purpose, output semantics, read-only safety, and related tooling, which is sufficient for a single-parameter validation tool. A fuller treatment might state what ok=false means beyond orphan cleanup, but the output schema can carry that detail.

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 single parameter file_path is not addressed in the description, and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description had the responsibility to explain it. The name is inferable, but the description contributes no semantic detail about the parameter.

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 ('Check') and resource ('footnote/endnote structural integrity'), and names the exact conditions it detects: mismatched note definitions/references and orphan definitions. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like cleanup_orphan_notes and list_footnotes.

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?

Provides conditional routing: if needs_cleanup=true, run cleanup_orphan_notes; use list_footnotes/list_endnotes to inspect note contents. It does not explicitly contrast with broader validators like validate_document, but the targeted scope makes intended use clear.

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