citation-verifier

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry full behavioral disclosure, but it only lists extraction types without describing output format, error handling, rate limits, or its read-only nature. The description adds no behavior beyond the operation itself, leaving a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, focused sentence that starts with the imperative 'Extract', making its purpose immediately clear. It contains no redundant details or filler, earning a high score for conciseness and front-loading.

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 tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, but the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., a list of entities, a structured object, or how 'statistics' are presented). It also fails to note any limitations or edge-case handling. Without annotations or an output schema, this leaves the description incomplete for an agent to predict all behavior.

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 input schema has a single required 'text' string, and the description mentions 'from text', which gives some context about the parameter. However, schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain parameter constraints, format expectations, or additional semantics. It partially compensates but not fully.

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 extracts citation-related entities (URLs, paper refs, DOIs, arXiv IDs, statistics) from text, using the specific verb 'Extract' and a well-defined resource list. This distinguishes it from siblings like probe_url and verify_citations, which have different verbs and purposes.

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 the tool is used when one needs to extract these entities from text, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide exclusions. It lacks guidance on when NOT to use this tool or how it relates to sibling tools like probe_url/verify_citations.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does convey that the tool checks reachability and follows redirects to a final destination, implying a non-destructive network operation. However, it omits details such as whether it actually fetches content, timeout behavior, or what exact response format is returned, leaving some ambiguity.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the primary action and resource, and contains no extraneous information. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides a complete high-level understanding of what the tool does: it checks reachability and reports the final destination after redirects. While it does not detail return structure, the tool is simple enough that the description is sufficient for selection and 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?

The input schema has a single 'url' parameter with no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The description explicitly refers to 'a single URL', which clarifies that the parameter expects a single URL string. This adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, but it does not specify URL format requirements (e.g., must include protocol), so it only partially compensates for the lack of schema detail.

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 ('probe') with a clear resource ('a single URL') and states the tool's purpose: checking reachability and finding the final destination. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tools, which focus on citations, making the tool's function unambiguous.

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 indicates the tool is for probing a single URL, which sets a clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions, though the sibling tools are unrelated to URL probing, so the guidance is adequate without needing explicit alternatives.

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 must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Extract + probe URLs + return trust score' without explaining what 'probe' entails (e.g., network requests, status checks), how the trust score is computed, or any side effects/rate limits. This is insufficient for a tool that likely performs network I/O.

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 very brief and front-loaded, but it is under-specified for a tool with two parameters and a non-trivial output. It omits essential details, making it more a terse summary than an effective, appropriately sized description.

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 the tool's complexity (extraction + probing + trust score) and the lack of parameter descriptions, output schema, or annotations, the description is far from complete. The agent is left to guess how to invoke the tool correctly and interpret the result.

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 0%, and the description does not mention the 'text' or 'probe_urls' parameters. The agent receives no guidance on what these parameters mean, what format 'text' should be in, or how 'probe_urls' affects behavior.

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: extract citations, probe URLs, and return a trust score. This succinctly combines the operations of the sibling tools, distinguishing it as the integrated verification tool.

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 both extraction and probing are needed, but it does not explicitly name alternatives like extract_citations or probe_url, nor does it provide when/when-not guidance. The combination of 'extract' and 'probe' suggests a full verification workflow, but the agent must infer this.

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