verify_quote

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses execution behavior (full scan vs FTS5 candidates) and the expected return content (verdict, location, similarity, passage, diff), which goes beyond a basic summary.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and outputs, then usage notes. No redundant wording; every clause adds value.

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?

Without an output schema, the description details return values and both scanning modes. It gives an agent enough context to invoke the tool correctly, with only the 'limit' parameter lightly documented.

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 compensates: it thoroughly explains book_id's role and implies quote's meaning. However, 'limit' is not described, leaving its effect (e.g., number of FTS5 candidates) ambiguous.

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 action with a specific verb and resource: 'Verify a quote against the library' and enumerates the verdict types and return fields. It also distinguishes from sibling tools by declaring it is the tool to use when quoting a book.

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 explicitly says 'Use this whenever you quote a book to the user' and explains two usage modes (with book_id vs omit). However, it does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, though the distinction is clear from the sibling names.

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