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

The description adds value beyond annotations by revealing deterministic Layer 1 (no LLM), paid-tier dependency for Layer 3, and output format (never bare true/false). annotations are neutral and not contradicted.

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 action, uses four efficient sentences without repetition, and every sentence adds key information such as layers, output, and disclaimers.

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 fully explains return values (VERIFIED/UNCONFIRMED/etc.), mentions source links, and covers behavioral nuances like paid tiers. It is complete for a single-parameter tool.

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% (parameter 'text' has a description). The tool description contextualizes this parameter by explaining how the text is processed, adding meaning beyond the raw 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 the tool verifies legal citations in text against primary sources using three layers, and specifies the output format per citation. It distinguishes itself from general citation tools by detailing the layered approach and output types.

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 implies use for verifying citations in text but does not explicitly when to prefer this tool over siblings like batch_verify_citations or verify_document, nor does it provide exclusion criteria.

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