validate_research_output

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

Annotations already convey read-only and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds useful behavioral context: validation is limited to schema compliance and exact quotes, insufficient answers must have low confidence with empty citations/findings, and semantic entailment is not evaluated. This goes beyond the structured hints and prevents misuse.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then uses a clear structured list for the required answer fields, and ends with an important limitation. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant 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?

For a validation tool with nested objects and minimal schema descriptions, the description covers the answer schema, the meaning of evidence_set_ids, the insufficient-answer convention, and the scope of validation. Since an output schema exists, the missing return-value details are not a significant gap.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description thoroughly documents the answer parameter's required nested structure, including confidence values, citations fields, and findings fields. It also clarifies that evidence_set_ids refer to 'previously returned evidence sets' and ties validation to 'one cutoff,' providing essential meaning the schema lacks.

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 and resource: 'Validate answer schema and exact quotes against previously returned evidence sets.' It clearly states what the tool does and differentiates it from semantic checks by noting it 'does not prove semantic entailment.'

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when validating a research output against previously returned evidence sets. The caveat that it does not prove semantic entailment gives a helpful boundary, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance beyond that limitation.

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