verify_citation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool verifies existence but does not disclose what happens if the citation is invalid (e.g., returns false/error), the expected response format, or any security/privacy considerations. This is minimal for a simple verification tool.

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 highly concise: one sentence for purpose and a structured list for arguments. No wasted words, and the structure is clear with 'Args:' section.

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?

The tool is simple (2 parameters), and an output schema exists (as per context). The description covers the core action and parameter examples but omits details on return values or behavior on failure. However, with an output schema, the return format is likely documented elsewhere. A note on what 'verify' entails beyond existence would improve completeness.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description includes an 'Args' section providing brief explanations with examples ('e.g. "ICA_1872:27" or "Section 27"'). This adds moderate meaning beyond the schema, but does not fully compensate for the lack of detail in the schema.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: verifying that a cited section of Indian law exists in the corpus. It uses a specific verb ('verify') and resource ('cited section'), distinguishing it from siblings like search_indian_law (which searches broadly) and analyze_contract (which analyzes contracts).

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 implies usage when a citation needs verification, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives like search_indian_law or analyze_contract. There is no exclusion or guidance on when not to use it.

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