verify-citation

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context: title-only inputs yield ambiguous candidates, provider outages are not the same as missing records, and scientific claims are out of scope.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core operation and then progressively adding behavioral qualifiers. Every sentence adds distinct information with no filler.

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?

With rich annotations and an output schema present, the description does not need to explain safety or return values. It covers purpose, input modes, ambiguity, outages, and scope, though it leaves the optional 'providers' parameter undocumented.

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%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'citation' can be an identifier or single BibTeX entry and that expected title/year are compared, but it says nothing about the optional 'providers' parameter or accepted formats.

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 gives a specific verb ('Verify') and resource ('identifier or single BibTeX entry') plus the comparison scope ('supplied title/year'). It also clarifies scope boundaries ('Does not validate scientific claims') so the agent can distinguish this from citation retrieval or enhancement 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?

It states input-mode behavior ('Title-only input returns ambiguous candidates') and operational distinctions ('Provider outages are distinct from missing records'), which help an agent set expectations. It lacks explicit when-to-use guidance versus sibling tools such as get-citation or enhance-citation.

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