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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does a good job: it discloses the network fetch, the report fields, the verbatim check, the sandbox/testnet context, and Ed25519-signed deliverables. It stops short of describing mutation/safety characteristics or rate limits, but the described behavior is notably 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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the first states core functionality, the second lists exclusions, the third gives sandbox/pricing/signing context. The most decision-relevant information is 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?

For a nested-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the operation, output elements, limitations, and sandbox semantics. It does not describe the exact output structure or authentication flows, but the schema partially handles those, and the core calling context is clear.

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 only 50%: quote_id is documented in the schema but the nested input/citations fields are not. The description partially compensates by explaining that URLs are fetched and quoted text is checked, giving meaning to url and quoted_text, but it does not clarify label or the relationship between quote_id and input beyond what the schema says.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair ('Audit citations in a document') and explains precisely what the tool does: fetch each URL over plain HTTPS, report HTTP status/content type, and check verbatim quoted text. It also states what it does not do (judge argument quality, check paywalled content), which distinguishes it from plausible siblings like 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 makes the intended use clear and even gives exclusions: it does not judge argument quality or check paywalled content. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or give a 'use when' rule, but the scope is specific enough that an agent can infer when to select it.

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