validate_citation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the tool parses the citation, checks document and provision existence, and returns warnings about repealed/amended status. It explicitly states 'never generates citations, only validates against verified data,' which provides clear behavioral expectations.

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 well-structured, starting with the core purpose, then detailing behavioral traits, and finally listing supported formats in a bullet-like manner. Each sentence adds value, and there is no fluff. The format examples are particularly useful.

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 (single parameter, no output schema), the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, what output to expect (warnings about status), and covers all relevant aspects. The inclusion of supported formats ensures the agent knows proper input.

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 schema has 100% coverage, so the description need not add much, but it provides a rich list of supported citation formats with examples (e.g., 'L. nr. 90/2018', '90/2018 14. gr.'), adding significant meaning beyond the simple schema description. This helps the agent understand the required format and scope.

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 purpose: 'Validate an Icelandic legal citation against the database.' It specifies the verb (validate) and the resource (Icelandic legal citation), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like format_citation or search_legislation by emphasizing it is a validation-only, 'zero-hallucination enforcer' that never generates citations.

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 by stating it is for validating existing citations against verified data, implying it should be used when you need to confirm a citation's existence and status. However, it does not explicitly exclude usage scenarios or compare to alternatives like get_provision or search_legislation, leaving some ambiguity.

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