verify_citation

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and idempotent, and the description adds valuable behavioral constraints: it returns only the canonical reference and status, never the article text. This prevents the agent from expecting full article content. It also warns against redundant calls after a successful article retrieval, which is useful operational context.

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 short sentences, each delivering distinct information: purpose, output behavior, and usage warning. There is no redundancy or filler, making it highly efficient.

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 simple input and presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, what it returns, and an important usage constraint. It does not elaborate on the meaning of 'status' or the canonical reference format, but these are likely self-explanatory or defined in the output schema. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema has one parameter, citation_text, and the description offers minimal additional meaning (only that it is a 'citation fournie par l'utilisateur'). With 0% schema description coverage, the description does not compensate by explaining expected citation formats or providing examples, so the parameter remains somewhat ambiguous beyond its name.

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 a specific action (vérifie et normalise) on a specific resource (une citation fournie par l'utilisateur) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting that it returns only the canonical reference and status, never the full article text. This makes its purpose unambiguous and differentiates it from get_article/get_articles.

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 explicit usage guidance by stating when not to call the tool: after a successful get_article or get_articles for the same reference. It implies the appropriate use case (when a user provides a citation to verify) but does not explicitly name alternative tools to use in other scenarios. This is clear context with a specific exclusion.

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