Check statute citations against the register

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so they convey safety. The description goes beyond by disclosing critical behavioral semantics: it retrieves from an open world ('openWorldHint' context), and crucially, it specifies the failure mode: 'An upstream failure is reported as UNVERIFIED, never as a missing law.' This adds essential behavioral context beyond annotations and is crucial for correct interpretation.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core action, the second provides a usage guideline, and the third adds a critical caveat. No wasted words, front-loaded with the verb.

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 moderate complexity (checking citation existence and status), the description covers the key behavioral expectations without going into excessive detail. It does not detail the return format or edge cases with multiple citations, but the read-only nature and the explicit UNVERIFIED rule cover the most important usage aspects.

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?

There is only one parameter, `text`, and schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description's mention of 'text' aligns with the parameter, but it does not add detail beyond what the schema already documents (e.g., no format, length, or examples).

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 uses a specific verb+resource construction: 'Extracts Australian statute citations from text and checks each against the Federal Register of Legislation.' It clearly details what is checked (act existence, in-force status, section existence) and distinguishes this from siblings by focusing on verification against the register.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use before presenting legal citations to a user.' This provides clear usage context, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use the tool, though the sibling list implies alternatives exist.

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