Citation Check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the tool performs mechanical processing without using a language model, has rate limits and size caps, and returns specific outputs (convictions with line locations). It does not detail error cases, but the disclosed constraints and processing mode go well beyond a bare statement.

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 packed into three short sentences: the first lists the checks, the second specifies the return type, and the third covers constraints. It is front-loaded and every sentence adds distinct value with no repetition or filler.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description provides a complete picture: what the tool does, how it behaves (pure parsing), what it returns, and its operational limits. There is no missing information that would impede correct selection or 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?

Schema coverage is 100% for the single parameter, which is described as 'The document to check (markdown or plain text)'. The description adds a meaningful constraint by specifying 'Max 200 KB', which applies to the text parameter and is not present in the schema. This enriches the parameter semantics slightly above baseline.

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 ('checks') and clearly enumerates the distinct types of checks performed (unmentioned counts, mismatched listings, marker vocabulary drift, graded totals, unresolved references). It also states the output (convictions with line locations), making the tool's purpose unmistakable and well-differentiated even without sibling context.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: it handles mechanical citation checks and explicitly states it is 'pure parsing — no model reads the text.' It also gives practical constraints (free tier limit, max size). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, though no siblings are listed.

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