verify_citations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds useful context about checking against official sources rather than local data, but it does not disclose what the tool returns or how it behaves when a citation does not exist.

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, focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the key resource ('statutory provisions or case numbers') and the action ('verify existence'), earning its place entirely.

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 one simple parameter and strong annotations, which help. However, there is no output schema and the description does not state the return format or per-citation behavior, leaving an important gap for an agent that needs to interpret the verification result.

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%, and the description adds some meaning by clarifying that the 'citations' strings are statutory provisions or case numbers. However, it does not provide format examples or further detail about accepted citation syntax, so the parameter semantics are only partially compensated.

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 specific action ('verifies'), a clear resource ('statutory provisions or case numbers'), and the scope ('actual existence in official sources'). This clearly distinguishes it from the many search/get sibling tools by focusing on existence verification rather than retrieval.

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 should be used when one needs to confirm whether legal citations actually exist, but it provides no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_legal, search_legal_content, or get_legal_detail. No exclusions or conditions are mentioned.

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