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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds what the structured fields cannot: the sign-in gate, the specific error signal (regulation_mismatch when a YYYY/NNNN embeds a different act), and the as_of/wording-in-force behavior. Lacks any note on rate limits or latency, so not a full 5.

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?

Dense but every sentence carries load: auth gate, purpose, input convention, follow-up, and disambiguation. It is well front-loaded, though leading with the auth prerequisite before stating the core purpose slightly buries the main verb.

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 read-only tool with no output schema and rich parameter docs, the description supplies the auth flow, the check semantics, the error case, and the natural next step (read_unit). What comes back is described only in outline, but no critical gap remains for correct invocation.

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?

With 100% schema coverage the baseline is 3, but the description goes further: it explains that regulation= disambiguates when the cite omits the act name, that quote= is an optional sentence check, and that cite is passed as written, adding semantics beyond the schema text.

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 precise verb and resource ('Verify a citation someone else produced') and defines the exact check performed: pinpoint existence in held text plus optional quote matching. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling read_unit, which it names as the follow-up for full text.

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?

Gives an explicit auth prerequisite (connect + connect_verify, or already signed in), the input convention ('pass the cite as written'), the optional quote=, and the alternative route (read_unit for full text). The regulation= disambiguation condition is also spelled out.

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