verify_quotes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so richly: it discloses matching tolerance (whitespace, hyphenation, ligatures, punctuation forgiven; word changes not), fragment-joining rules, a 5-word floor, a 50-quote cap, and that the operation is local-only. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs.

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 purpose and matching rules are front-loaded and every sentence in the first block earns its place. The privacy paragraph is long and spends several sentences on other tools' data flows (review_paper, check_citations), which is tangential to invoking this tool, though the local-only claim itself is valuable.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For a two-parameter verification tool, the description supplies matching semantics, limits, workflow placement, and privacy posture — everything needed to call it correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds substantial meaning for `quotes` (minimum 5 words, max 50 per call, join fragments with '...' in order), but says nothing about `pdf_path` (format, absolute vs relative). Half the parameters remain undocumented in both schema and description.

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 precise verb and resource: 'Check that quotes you intend to cite from a paper appear in its PDF word for word, and on which page.' An agent immediately knows this verifies quote fidelity against a PDF. However, it never explicitly contrasts itself with siblings like check_citations or check_format, so routing relies on the reader inferring the distinction.

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 gives a clear usage trigger: 'Use it on every quote before putting it in a review: a quote that is not verified must not be presented as the paper's text.' This tells the agent when to reach for the tool. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or an explicit when-not case, so it is strong context without full routing guidance.

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