verify_citation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does well by revealing that it queries Crossref, Semantic Scholar, DBLP, and arXiv concurrently, computes confidence scores, resolves DOIs, and returns formatted citations. It stops short of describing failure/not-found behavior or the exact shape of the verification result.

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 dense sentence with no filler; the core purpose is front-loaded and every clause adds useful behavioral detail. It is slightly run-on and could be split into separate sentences for readability, but it remains efficient.

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 covers what the tool does and its major outputs, but no output schema exists, and the description does not clarify the result structure, how confidence scores are represented, or what happens when a citation cannot be verified. Given the multi-source external lookups, more detail would help an agent handle partial or failed lookups.

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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters adequately. The description adds no significant parameter-level semantics beyond mentioning DOI resolution, which is already implied by the 'doi' parameter description. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('verifies whether') and a specific resource ('academic paper citation'), and clearly distinguishes the tool from its siblings: it checks authenticity rather than searching for papers or merely formatting citations. The phrase 'authentic or AI-hallucinated' adds precise functional intent.

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 clear usage context: use this tool when a citation needs validation. It also implicitly distinguishes from search_academic_papers and format_bibtex by focusing on verification and multi-source lookup. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools.

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