verify_legal_citations

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 does not state whether this is a read-only operation, whether it makes external calls, what it returns on success or failure, or any side effects. The phrase 'verifies' implies a read/check action, but that is not explicit. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero 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 a single short sentence, which is concise and front-loaded. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices necessary detail. It earns a middle score: not verbose, but under-specified for a tool with a verification purpose and multiple inputs.

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 complexity (verifying multiple aspects of citations) and the absence of annotations or output schema details, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the verification returns, how results are structured, or what constitutes a successful verification. The output schema exists but its content is not described, so the description should compensate – it does not. An agent would be under-equipped to call this tool correctly and 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the parameters. It mentions 'document, metadata, location, and quote' which loosely map to document_id, expected_date/provider (metadata), locator (location), and quote, but it does not explain the meaning of each parameter or how they interact. An agent would need to infer the role of each parameter from the names alone, which is insufficient given the verification context.

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 it 'separately verifies document, metadata, location, and quote consistency' – a specific action (verify) on a defined scope (consistency of four elements). It is not a tautology and gives a reasonable sense of purpose, but it does not clearly differentiate from siblings like search_legal_sources or get_legal_document. It could be more specific about the verification result and the exact process.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions. The description simply states what it does without context. An agent would have to infer usage from the name and sibling names, which is insufficient.

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