citation_evidence

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

No annotations, but description fully discloses behavior: calls check_citations, finds first mention in raw_answer, returns context window plus nearest quoted span or sentence, and returns 'not found' for engines without raw_answer. No contradictory or hidden behavior.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with purpose, each sentence adds unique value: action, process, usage guidance, edge case. No redundancy or fluff.

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 no output schema, description adequately explains input behavior and return types (context window, quoted span, 'not found'). Could be more explicit about output structure, but sufficient for an extraction tool with clear process.

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% (all 4 params described in schema). Description adds workflow context (how params are used) and clarifies engine-specific behavior (web_rank engines lack raw_answer), but overall value added is moderate beyond the schema.

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?

Description states specific verb 'Extract' and resource 'cited snippet' and distinguishes from sibling check_citations by explaining 'use to see why an engine cited a URL, not just that it did.'

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?

Explicitly says 'Use to see why an engine cited a URL, not just that it did' and warns about engines without raw_answer (Bing, Brave). Could be more explicit about when not to use, but provides clear context relative to siblings.

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