Audit paper notes for missing citations

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description explicitly states 'Read-only.' The description adds valuable context: it returns flagged notes with found identifiers and a proposed patch, with no behavioral surprises. No contradiction with 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?

The description is a concise paragraph that front-loads the main purpose, then adds secondary behavior and return format. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more compact. No unnecessary repetition.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains the return format (flagged notes with found identifiers and proposed patch) and the process (configurable tag, folder restriction). It covers the tool's functionality comprehensively without needing additional context.

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 schema already describes all three parameters. The description briefly notes that the tag is configurable and defaults to 'paper', and that limit defaults to 100, but these are also in the schema. The description does not add significant new meaning beyond 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 clearly states it audits paper notes for missing citations, specifying the action (audit), resource (notes tagged #paper), and criteria (missing citable identifiers). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on citation completeness, which is a specific, narrow functionality.

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 explains when to use the tool: to check paper notes for citation completeness, and even suggests follow-up actions (validate_note_proposal + create_note/append_to_note). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, leaving some ambiguity for very similar tasks.

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