validate_citation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context by stating it checks existence against the database and returns 'validation status with details on what was/wasn't found.' This goes beyond the annotations, though it doesn't detail error handling or exact return structure—acceptable given the low-risk read-only nature.

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 front-loaded with purpose, then usage, then format examples, then alternative—all in three sentences. Every sentence provides essential information, with no filler. The format list is lengthy but necessary for correct invocation.

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 validation tool, the description is complete: it states what it does, when to use it, what formats are accepted, what it returns (status with details), and which sibling to use instead. Even without an output schema, the return behavior is adequately described.

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 describes the single parameter only as 'Citation string to validate' (100% coverage). The description adds significant meaning by listing supported formats (e.g., 'Art. 6:162 BW', 'ECLI:NL:HR:2019:376') and clarifying what constitutes a valid citation. This materially helps the agent construct the parameter value.

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 specific purpose: 'Validate a Dutch legal citation against the database — checks whether the referenced document and provision actually exist.' It uses a specific verb ('validate') and resource ('Dutch legal citation'), and explicitly distinguishes from sibling 'format_citation' by contrasting validation vs. formatting.

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?

Provides explicit usage context: 'Use this to verify citations before including them in legal analysis (zero-hallucination check).' It also names an alternative: 'Use format_citation instead if you just need to format a citation string.' This clearly tells the agent when to use and when not to use the tool.

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