aps_check_artifact_citations

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

With no annotations, the description partially carries the transparency burden by detailing validation steps (receipt must be signed, unexpired, with matching content/principal, and replay protection). However, it does not disclose side effects, return values, or failure behaviors, leaving gaps for a check 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 a single dense sentence, efficiently packed with conditions. However, the opening 'Representation boundary' is cryptic and not self-explanatory, reducing overall clarity despite conciseness.

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 has no output schema and no annotations. The description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., boolean, list of failures), how `binding_context` affects behavior, or which fields are required on `artifact`. This makes it incomplete for an agent to safely invoke without additional context.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning about how artifact and receipts relate (matching logic, replay protection) but does not clarify the 'binding_context' parameter or provide type details beyond the schema descriptions.

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: 'gate a binding artifact's citations' with specific validation criteria (signed, unexpired receipt, content + principal match, replay protection). This distinguishes it from other aps_* tools that focus on different primitives, though 'Representation boundary' jargon slightly obscures clarity.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like aps_verify_attribution_primitive or aps_check_attribution. The description implies a verification/gating role but does not state context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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