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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a meaningful policy: corrections do not delete original text, so the version/seed number is essential for later cross-checking. Yet it never explicitly states what the tool itself does or returns—such as that invoking it provides citation instructions—or whether it is a read-only informational call.

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 two concise sentences: the first states the topic, the second gives the actionable rule and its rationale. The parenthetical 'seed 番号' adds useful clarification, and there is no filler or redundant content.

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 zero-parameter informational tool with no output schema, the description supplies the core content needed: the citation rule and the reason behind it. It leaves a small gap by not describing what a returned response looks like, but the tool is simple enough that this is not dangerously incomplete.

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 zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so there is no parameter information for the description to add. This matches the baseline for zero-parameter tools.

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 identifies the topic and resource: how to cite, with the specific rule of including the version/seed number. It is distinguishable from sibling tools about items, sources, search, and status, though it uses a noun phrase rather than an explicit action verb like 'returns' or 'provides instructions.'

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 it clear that the citation rule matters whenever citing, especially because original descriptions are preserved after corrections and the version is needed for later reconciliation. However, it never explicitly says when to use this tool versus alternatives and names no alternative tools or exclusion conditions, so the usage guidance is only implied.

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