find_citation

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, so the description adds value by disclosing deterministic behavior, the constraint of never inventing text, and the explicit NOT_FOUND return convention. This goes beyond the structured annotations.

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 extremely concise—two sentences front-loaded with the core action and output behavior. Every clause adds value (verbatim, NOT_FOUND, never invents, deterministic, decision-support). No wasted words.

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, the description covers the essential return values and constraints. The presence of an output schema (not shown) likely documents return structure; description explains the high-level behavior. Missing edge-case details but acceptable for the tool's scope.

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%, but the parameter names (source_text, claim) are self-explanatory. The description refers to 'source' and 'claim' without adding format or constraints beyond what the schema provides, leaving room for more detail but not critical.

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: returning exact verbatim text from a source that supports a claim, or NOT_FOUND. This is a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like extract_break_clause or check_conditions.

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 you need supporting evidence for a claim) but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or provide exclusions. The phrase 'Decision-support only' hints at appropriate contexts but lacks explicit guidance.

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