verify_citation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the check is against Crossref and that it is a bibliographic match rather than a publication-validity judgment, but it does not describe return behavior, match strictness, failure modes, or external API constraints.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The scope and key exclusion are communicated immediately.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should do more to explain what a successful or failed verification returns. It gives the core scope but leaves important agent-facing details absent.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for both required parameters. It mentions 'DOI/title match,' which ties the parameters together, but it does not explain DOI formatting, title-matching behavior, exactness requirements, or how the claimed title is compared.

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 states a specific verb ('Verify') and resource ('bibliographic DOI/title match in Crossref'), and the parenthetical distinguishes it from publication-validity checks. It does not explicitly name sibling tools, but its scope is clear enough to separate it from claim or source verification.

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?

It implies usage by saying it verifies a DOI/title match and explicitly excludes checking the validity of the publication. However, it does not say when to use this instead of alternatives like verify_claim, verify_source_quote, or check_retraction.

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