proofpage_check_answer

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

With no annotations, the description does provide important behavioral caveats: it checks stored evidence only, uses no network, and wording matches do not establish truth. However, it does not explain the result format, whether the check is purely read-only, or what an agent should do with the automatic citation pairing.

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 short and front-loaded with the main action, and each sentence adds at least a caveat or workflow note. The telegraphic fragments are efficient, though the final sentence about reviewing citation pairing could be integrated more clearly.

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 check tool with no output schema, the description should clarify what the input represents and what kind of result to expect. It gives useful limitations but leaves both the parameter meaning and return behavior undefined.

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 schema has only one required parameter, 'text', with 0% schema description coverage. The description never explains whether 'text' is the answer being checked, the source text, or something else, so it does not compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 operation: extract quotes/citations and check stored evidence only. This is clear enough to understand the tool's purpose, but it does not explicitly distinguish the tool from similar siblings such as proofpage_verify_quotes or proofpage_check_evidence_run.

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 explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'Review automatic citation pairing' hints at a review-oriented workflow, but the description never names alternatives or states exclusions.

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