citeguard

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the core behavior (extracts claim+source pairs, verifies each, returns a score) but lacks details on failure modes, network requirements, rate limits, or side effects. This is useful but not fully transparent.

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 a single, information-dense sentence. It front-loads the core purpose ('Audit every citation') and then efficiently lists what it extracts, how verification works, and what it returns. No wasted words.

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 single-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: input, extraction, verification, and output score. It is slightly incomplete in not describing the report format or edge-case behavior, but overall it provides enough context for basic use.

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% for the single 'document' parameter, so the schema already provides the meaning. The description repeats 'markdown/plain-text' but adds no additional semantic detail beyond the schema, hence 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Audit every citation in a markdown/plain-text document'. It specifies the resource (document), the action (audit), and the scope (every citation), and distinguishes from siblings by detailing extract+verify+report behavior.

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 usage: when you have a markdown/plain-text document with citations and want a comprehensive audit. It provides a clear context but does not explicitly discuss when to use this tool over siblings like check_links or verify_claims, nor any exclusions.

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

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 offers substantive transparency by revealing that the check is liveness-only, does not use an LLM, extracts URLs from citations, and reports dead links, homepage redirects, and archive.org availability. It does not mention return format or network behavior, but the core execution model is well conveyed for a simple read-only tool.

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 a single, compact sentence that is front-loaded with 'Liveness-only check (no LLM)' and efficiently conveys the tool's scope and outputs. No wasted words; every phrase adds information.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's behavior and purpose. Missing return format details are a minor gap, but the explanation of what it reports (dead links, homepage redirects, archive.org availability) gives a clear picture of expected results. Given the tool's simplicity and read-only nature, this is nearly complete.

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% with the only parameter 'document' described as 'Document text (markdown or plain text)'. The description adds no additional syntax or format details beyond the schema, but it does clarify that the document contains citations, which aligns with the schema. The baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema fully documents the parameter.

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's function: a liveness-only check that extracts cited URLs and reports dead links, homepage redirects, and archive.org availability. It uses a specific verb ('extracts'/'reports') and resource ('cited URLs'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on link health rather than overall document quality or claim verification.

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 usage context through 'Liveness-only check (no LLM)', suggesting it is for quick, deterministic link checking. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus check_document or verify_claims, nor does it provide any exclusions or alternative guidance. The context is clear but not directly compared to siblings.

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

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently states that the tool fetches each cited URL and returns a per-claim verdict with a quoted evidence span. Minor omissions like network failure handling are partially covered by the 'could_not_fetch' verdict, but rate limits or side effects are not mentioned.

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?

A single sentence packs all essential information: input, action, output format, and outcome categories. There is no filler or redundant repetition of schema details, making it highly concise and front-loaded.

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?

The description is largely complete for a tool with moderate complexity and no output schema: it explains the input structure, the fetch process, the verdict taxonomy, and the evidence span. It could add operational context (e.g., latency, external request behavior, or what happens when no evidence is found), but the core functionality is sufficiently covered.

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?

The top-level schema description coverage is 0%, so the description is expected to compensate. It conveys that the input is a list of claim+source pairs, which maps to the 'text' and 'source' subfields, but it does not mention the optional 'context' field or array constraints. The nested schema descriptions help, but the description alone is incomplete for parameter understanding.

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 uses a specific verb ('Verify') and resource ('claim+source pairs'), and lists exact verdict categories, making its purpose immediately clear. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools ('check_document', 'check_links') by focusing on per-claim verification with evidence spans.

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 you have claim+source pairs to verify. However, it does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusion criteria (e.g., 'use check_document for full-document checking'), so it lacks an explicit contrast with sibling tools.

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