cite_check

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered; the description adds value by categorizing the kinds of findings returned. It omits the scope of the analysis (what corpus or graph is checked), whether the check is exhaustive, and any cost/latency traits. An output schema exists, so return shape need not be restated.

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?

It is very short and front-loaded, so there is no wasted wording, but it is a single incomplete fragment ending in an ellipsis, which reads as truncated rather than deliberately concise.

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 two-parameter analysis tool with an output schema, the description still leaves the input contract unexplained: no mention of the result cap or the category filter, and no statement of analysis scope. What is present covers output kinds only, leaving the agent without enough to call it confidently.

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% for two parameters, so the description must compensate and does not: neither 'limit' nor 'categories' is mentioned. The listed finding types are only an indirect hint at what valid 'categories' values might be, and 'limit' (default 8) is completely unexplained.

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description is a noun fragment rather than a verb+resource statement, but the enumerated finding types (stale statuses, superseded clauses, ghost paths, near-duplicates) do convey the domain: a check for structural problems in citations. An agent can infer the purpose but gets no explicit statement of what the tool does or how it differs from siblings such as find_overlaps, which overlaps with 'near-duplicates'.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The sibling find_overlaps plausibly covers the 'near-duplicates' territory, yet the definition gives no routing signal either way.

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