verify_section

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool verifies existence and retrieves a citation, but does not disclose key behavioral traits such as error handling (e.g., what happens if the section doesn't exist), authentication needs, rate limits, or whether it's a read-only or mutating operation. The description adds some context but leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, consisting of a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose and a brief usage hint. There is no wasted language, and every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool's function, 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 tool's moderate complexity (2 required parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It covers the basic purpose and a usage hint, but lacks details on behavioral traits, error handling, and output format. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should do more to compensate, but it provides a minimal viable explanation, resulting in an average score.

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 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters ('id' and 'code'). The description does not add any additional meaning or examples beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't elaborate on parameter usage or constraints). According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3, as the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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: 'Verify if a section exists and get its formal citation.' It specifies the verb ('verify') and resource ('section'), and mentions a key outcome ('formal citation'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like 'get_section' or 'search_code', which might have overlapping functionality, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 implied usage guidance by stating 'use this to prevent hallucination,' suggesting it should be used to validate section existence before referencing it. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_section' or 'search_code,' nor does it outline any exclusions or prerequisites, resulting in a moderate score.

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