citation_pack

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses a significant side effect: if verification/extracts have not yet run, the tool will autonomously complete them via network/browser. It also states the quality-gate guarantee that sources are live rather than dead.

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 compact and front-loads the key purpose and constraints before the WHEN/NOT WHEN routing. Minor redundancy exists ('гейт качества' is mentioned twice), but overall every section 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 an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage routing, and important behavioral side effects. It is only missing explicit camp_id semantics, which is a modest gap given the low complexity.

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?

There is one required parameter (camp_id), and schema description coverage is 0%. The description never explains what camp_id refers to, how to obtain it, or its expected format; it only implicitly ties it to the DeepResearch campaign context via the tool's purpose.

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 defines the deliverable: a citation pack for report synthesis using only verified sources with extracts in one numbered block. It explicitly contrasts itself with citation_report and research_digest, so an agent can distinguish it from nearby siblings.

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 WHEN section states to use this tool exclusively when writing a report that needs citations, and the NOT WHEN section names specific alternatives (citation_report for disk files, research_digest for unverified extracts). This is explicit routing guidance.

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