aps_check_artifact_citations

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

With no annotations, the description bears the burden and discloses key behavioral traits: validation of receipts (signed, unexpired, matching content+principal) and per-artifact replay protection. However, it does not mention authentication requirements or side effects, but given it is a read/validation tool, this is adequate.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. Two sentences carry all necessary information without redundancy.

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?

Given no output schema, the description does not specify what the tool returns (e.g., success/failure, error details). The return behavior is important for a validation/gating tool and is missing.

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 descriptions are minimal, but the tool description adds context about the validation conditions (signed, unexpired, replay protection), which helps understand the parameter expectations. This adds value beyond the schema.

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 purpose: 'gate a binding artifact's citations' with specific conditions (signed, unexpired receipt, matching content+principal, replay protection). It is a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from many sibling tools.

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 tool is used for validation of citations but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it provide any exclusions or context for when not to use it.

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