validate_document

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'validate' without indicating whether the tool modifies the document, requires specific permissions, or produces a report. The agent cannot infer side effects or safety considerations.

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 very concise (one sentence), but at the cost of missing critical details. It is front-loaded with the core purpose but lacks structure—no breakdown of validation checks, return values, or usage notes.

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 absence of an output schema and the presence of sibling tools like preflight_document and cleanup_document, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the output format (e.g., a report, list of issues) or how to interpret results, leaving the agent to guess the tool's behavior.

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?

All four parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage), so the schema already provides clear meaning. The tool description adds no additional context for the parameters, resulting in baseline score.

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 'Validate document structure and content' clearly states the tool's verb (validate) and resource (document). It implies a diagnostic purpose, differentiating from sibling tools like cleanup_document (which may fix issues) and preflight_document (which may check for print readiness). However, it could be more specific about what aspects of structure and content are validated.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not explain how validate_document differs from preflight_document or cleanup_document, nor does it mention prerequisites or typical use cases.

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