verify_citations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It reveals a useful efficiency behavior (canonical text read only once) and the batching semantics, but does not state whether the operation is read-only, what it returns, or how failures are handled; 'same contract' borrows those details from a sibling rather than stating them directly.

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 compact, starts with the core purpose, and contains no filler. Every sentence earns its place: purpose, sibling contract, parameter structure, and a non-obvious performance insight.

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?

For a one-parameter batch tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, when to use it, and parameter format. The main gap is explicit routing guidance between single and batch verification, but the 'same contract as verify_citation' reference keeps the definition sufficiently usable.

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 only says `citations` is an array of open objects (0% schema coverage), while the description supplies the object shape: `document_id`, `quote`, and optional `chunk_id`. That is enough structure to build a valid call, though the meaning of the fields is left largely to naming conventions.

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 first sentence states a specific action and object ('Vérifie plusieurs citations d'un coup') and clearly positions it as the batched counterpart to `verify_citation`. It is not a tautology and tells an agent exactly what resource is operated on and at what granularity.

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 gives concrete usage context: batch citations from the same response, with a performance rationale ('coûte à peine plus qu'une seule'). It does not explicitly say 'use verify_citation for a single citation', but the 'même contrat' reference and the plural/singular contrast imply the alternative.

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