check-citations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool analyzes, flags claims, and returns reasons and suggested sources. It does not mention side effects or state changes, but the read-only nature is strongly implied by 'analyze' and 'returns,' which is adequate for a non-destructive analysis 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and includes return value details without unnecessary fluff. Every word earns its place.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains the input, the processing, and the return format. No additional information is needed to use the tool 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?

The schema already provides a full description of the single parameter 'paragraph,' achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds minimal extra meaning beyond restating that it's a draft paragraph. Thus baseline 3 applies.

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 function: 'Analyze a draft paragraph' and 'flag claims that are unsupported, overly absolute, or contradicted.' This verb+resource+outcome distinguishes it from sibling tools like summarize-paper or readiness-report, which serve different purposes.

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 the use case: when you have a draft paragraph to check against a paper library. It provides clear context but does not explicitly name alternative tools or specify when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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