verify_source_quote

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses retrieval of external full text but says nothing about failure behavior (quote not found), whether the pmcid must be an exact PMC identifier, rate limits, or what the result looks like. 'NOT a scientific verdict' is a useful output-scoping caveat but far from complete behavioral disclosure.

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?

A single compact sentence with the action front-loaded and the important limitation trailing. No filler, though the semicolon-heavy phrasing is slightly terse.

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 two-required-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain return shape (found/not-found, position, matched text) and any pmcid format expectations. It omits both, leaving the agent unable to interpret results.

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 coverage is 0% and neither parameter has a description, so the description is the only source of meaning. It implies 'pmcid' identifies the Europe PMC source and 'quote' is the string being located, which covers both params conceptually, but adds no format, matching, or normalization guidance.

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?

States a specific verb chain (Retrieve + locate) on a specific resource (Europe PMC full text / source paragraphs) and the boundary condition 'NOT a scientific verdict', which distinguishes it from siblings like verify_claim and verify_evidence_ledger. Clear without needing to inspect the schema.

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 'NOT a scientific verdict' clause implies when NOT to rely on this tool's output, but no alternative sibling is named and no positive trigger condition (e.g., 'use when you have a pmcid and an exact quote string') is given. Usage is only implied.

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