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

The annotations already establish that the tool is read-only, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds meaningful behavior by saying it performs an existence check against the local corpus and returns per-item verification results, but it does not explain result fields, matching limits, or failure modes.

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 compact, front-loaded, and structured with clear USE WHEN and RETURNS sections. The alias list is somewhat long but serves discovery and does not obscure the core purpose.

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 simple two-parameter, read-only tool with full schema coverage and clear annotations, the description provides enough context to select and invoke it correctly. The main remaining gap is that it does not specify the structure of the per-item verification results returned.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema documents both parameters: the body text containing citations and an optional topic. The description does not add further detail about input format, citation parsing, or how the topic parameter affects verification.

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 states a specific verb and resource: verify citation authenticity, specifically checking whether references are fabricated. It also scopes the operation as an existence check against the local corpus, which distinguishes it from citation formatting or ordinary literature search siblings.

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?

It gives an explicit USE WHEN trigger: checking whether references are fabricated. It does not state when not to use it or name alternative sibling tools for broader literature discovery, but the intended use case is clear.

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