Check report citation coverage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses a genuinely useful trait: orphan claims come back as an error list and the tool never reports a pass, plus the dual input mode and precedence. It stops short of stating whether the operation is read-only or how a clean report is represented.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler: the core behavior, including the 'never a pass' caveat, is front-loaded, and the input forms follow immediately. Every clause earns its place.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description does most of the required work, covering what is verified, the failure shape, and the two input routes. The notable remaining gap is that neither parameter is required, yet the description never says what happens if both report_id and report_path are omitted.

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 both parameters are already documented, including the 'overrides report_id' precedence. The description restates the accepted input forms but adds no format, syntax, or validation detail beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline rather than exceeding it.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: verify every substantive claim in a report cites a scored source. It clearly sits downstream of build_report and is distinguishable from plan_research, fetch_and_score, and build_report without opening any schema.

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 the pipeline position by accepting a 'report id (as built)' and annotating the schema with 'Report id returned by build_report', so the workflow context is inferable. However, it never states explicitly when to use this versus the sibling tools, nor any when-not condition or prerequisite.

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